New Service Blocks EU Users So Companies Can Save Thousands on GDPR Compliance (bleepingcomputer.com)

Catalin Cimpanu, reporting for BleepingComputer: A new service called GDPR Shield made the rounds last week and for all the wrong reasons. The service, advertised as a piece of JavaScript that webmasters embed on their sites, blocks EU-based users from accessing a website, just so the parent company won't have to deal with GDPR compliance. GDPR, or General Data Protection Regulation, is a new user and data privacy regulation slated to come into effect in the EU three weeks from now, on May 25, 2018.

The new regulation brings a wealth of protections to user privacy but is a nightmare for companies doing business in Europe. The reasons are plenty, but the humongous fines for failing to meet GDPR standards are at the top of the list for most companies ($24 million or 4% of a company's annual worldwide revenue -- whichever is higher). There's also the 72-hour deadline to reveal data breaches and the necessity of hiring a so-called "Data Protection Officer." Plus, GDPR also mandates that companies must inform users on what data they collected about them, allow them to review the data, and even let users delete the data from the company's servers if they so wish.

Comments

Nothing "new" here

[Dorianny]

geofencing is not exactly a new concept. At least it finally is being used for good (privacy protection) rather then for evil (arbitrary geographical media blocking)

Re:Nothing "new" here

[OzPeter]

for good (privacy protection)

Good is rather relative here: it's purpose here is evading privacy protection.

It's not so much as evading privacy restrictions as locking out users for which privacy protections have been mandated.

If anything you could use it as an indication to ether do or refuse to do business with a company based on what side of the GDPR fence you want to be.

Re:Nothing "new" here

[mvdwege]

Tell me, what of my personal data beyond billing and shipping data for my most recent order would a Mom and Pop shop need?

This is the usual right-wing talking point about 'onerous regulation' and it is bullshit. It is not about the small businesses, unless they are merely a bait-and-switch operation trying to gain my data to sell it on to unscrupulous marketeers. It is about massive corporations that want to be free to pillage my life for their profits, and there is always an idiot falling for their 'but think of the poor small businessmen' shtick.

Re:Nothing "new" here

[mvdwege]

That canard again. IP address logging for the purposes of site operation has never fallen under EU privacy guidelines, unless that data is kept for longer than its intended purpose and used for data mining.

Which is exactly the point of the GDPR: it says 'Don't do that and you'll be fine'. If you look at the FAQ you see that the GDPR does not cover this use of data.

Re:Nothing "new" here

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Regulations have consequences.

Yes, and the GDPR really does have significant uncertainty and cause disproportionate overheads for a lot of smaller businesses, charities, etc.

This is the kind of thing that makes it difficult for you to pretend otherwise.

Well, yes and no. The article here isn't great: it perpetuates a lot of myths and exaggerations. The specific blocking service mentioned has been heavily criticised in other forums already for trying to cash in on the fear while providing questionable protection.

Anyone with two firing brain cells can anticipate that GPDR trolls will appear on day 1 to sue whomever has deep enough pockets to be worth suing.

Unless they'd actually used those brain cells to read, in which case they'd know that the GDPR is going to be enforced primarily through government regulators, not personal legal actions. There are plenty of problems with it, but attracting ambulance-chasing lawyers isn't likely to be one of them.

Re:Thousands, try millions.

[FictionPimp]

We didn't find much trouble in compliance. Sure we had to write a few policies and work out a procedure for exporting and deleting data from our systems. We did not spend even 25k in work to pull this off. It was fairly trivial for companies that don't make a product out of consumers.

Good

[houghi]

The way I see it as a European, it will mean that they where selling my data anyway, so that means they won't do that anymore. It also means they will not be able to do that for any of the other 350+MM Europeans.

This was also the intended reason for the law. It is as if Europe is saying "You are not allowed to take our data" and these websites are saying "Well, if that is the case, as punishment, we are not going to take your data."

Re:EU needs to be careful...

[religionofpeas]

As a EU resident, I don't mind if companies are choosing to block EU if they can't comply with privacy rules. I'd rather not do business with those companies.

Let me correct some details on the GDPR

[Qbertino]

Disclaimer: I've worked myself into GDPR details to shape my employer up for it.

GP is a little off on some details.

You have to *name* a Data Protectoin Officer. This can be anybody empowered to check compliance. Usually this is done by some administrative or IT specialist. Germany has had this for decades. No need for an extra hire.

You don't have to spend thousands or millions. You just need to have a proper setup and due diligence in place. The new thing is that you need to document procedures in a standardized manner. The big difference between the law that come in on 25.4.2018 is that someone could only sue you if he was damaged and only if he could prove a data breach of critical personal data. The fines up to this point also were laughable.

Now anyone involved, including customers, can ask how data is handled and the authorities and others have the right to review documentation of your SOPs for data protection. Also you're in for big trouble with massive fines (up to 4% of global anual revenue) if you're careless with data and aren't willing to comply with the GDPR.

In short: If you have your IT in order GDPR compliance isn't that much of a big deal.
Documentation is, but compliance is not.

If however your IT is shit, then you're in for trouble if they come for you. Big time.
Since they *will* eventually come for you *and* most companies (online *and* brick and mortar) IT setups are somewhere between disorganized shite and abysmal, companies would rather opt out than go through the hassle of complying. Which means only companies with proper procedures and due diligence in their IT will remain doing business in the EU. ... Can't really complain about that actually.

Thus endeth some real-world details on GDPR.
You're welcome.

Brilliant idea

[gurps_npc]

If you don't want to have to deal with the laws of a certain country, should have the right to not do business inside that country.

Of course, that leaves a big underserved market. In less than 4 years someone will come along and serve them, while abiding by the laws they hate.

Which could very well lead to those companies losing world wide market share as those new, privacy conscience companies expand out of their underserved market into the general world wide marketplace.

As for the laws they are trying to avoid? We need them in our country.

**note - they don't have to be sitting in the EU

[btroy]

People you do business with don't have to be sitting in the EU when they visit your site for you to be liable.

A EU citizen sitting in Starbucks in the US is equally as protected as if they were sitting in France.

Also, if you stored the shipping label to let's say...send them a package to their vacation home in Iowa, you're still liable ... as long as they are EU citizens.

If all you do is Geo-fence, you're already not going to make it.