Because too many companies don't offer an opt-out, don't assure correctness of data, don't adequately protect data, don't give a shit about consumer privacy.
GDPR doesn't prevent any of the activities you've indicated you undertake. You should welcome it, it'll stop other people selling private data and using the revenue to boost their competitiveness against you.
those small amounts of data they need to run their business now have huge handling requirements
No. Anybody PCI compliant is already meeting far more onerous expectations. Anybody that secures the data used by their business and manages it properly is already compliant, unless their business is the data itself.
That does still leave a lot of organisations that have shit data protection technologies, processes and implementation, but since they're putting their customers' data at risk why shouldn't they be invited to run their business properly?
it can't be as simple as a form letter that says "nothing" because while your order is being processed, they do have personal info, and it needs to handle that.
That's not strictly true. If all orders are processed, closed and the associated data deleted within a couple of weeks then all data requests can be responded to 21 days later with "Sorry, who are you?"
You're misunderstanding the law. Please educate yourself before trying to tell anybody anything about it.
However, you do prove the point beautifully: Americans haven't got a fucking hope of complying with GDPR, so of course it makes sense for them to block the EU.
Given that over 50% of the people killed by the US police in 2017 are white men, who in turn are only around 30-35% of the population in the US, you appear to be using fundamentally flawed assumptions.
'quite endangered' is pretty fucking nonsensical. Law abiding tourists are more likely to catch leprosy from an armadillo than be killed by the police.
I think you're missing the history here though. Fortnite was originally not a 'battle royale' style game at all, and many of the early supporters (and people that put money into it) feel betrayed by its switch in focus. They very much drop the review scores.
Then there's the ongoing changes that any online game gets. A great online game may be changed by the developers to try and keep players engaged and interested, but invariably some of the original community will dislike the changes - the switch to Battle Royale being a prime example.
While those changes may result in new players with a positive view of the game, they're also likely to result in poor reviews from players who feel aggrieved at the perceived damage to their entertainment of choice.
It's one reason Steam now differentiates between overall and recent reviews.
The Mercedes C and E hybrids are basically combustion engine cars with electric assist to give them better acceleration and cheaper tax. Very popular on company car schemes that heavily factor emissions into prices.
Entirely irrelevant when real-world emissions are taken into account.
We're talking about the UK here. The sun does appear occasionally but on average a car roof solar panel isn't going to do much more than power the radio. If that.
Too bad they are considered vehicles that require annual inspections, taxes and road insurance in Europe (and requires you as the importer to make them pass inspection); in Asia where they are considered bicycles they are very convenient indeed.
Given that Chinese road traffic deaths are over six times as high (per 100k population) as the UK, maybe some of that regulation is actively saving lives (plus various economic benefits).
(could be worse, I could have used Thailand as the comparator)
Looking at the trends in EV range it is clear that the potential range of EV will exceed ICE vehicles at some point in the future
Right. Come back when a car with a fuel tank as large as those batteries doesn't go further.
Car fuel tanks balance weight, interior space and range. Electric cars will need to do the same - you aren't going to sell many Chevvy Suburbans with the boot full of batteries in the UK where they wont fit into parking spaces.
My issue is that the U.K. (or any) government does not get to dictate how motor companies choose to innovate.
The people of the UK, through the actions of their Government, do however get to dictate which technologies are not permitted to be sold in their country.
If a car company doesn't wish to "innovate" by putting a 51 mile range battery in with the combustion engine then nobody will give a shit. They just wont be able to sell cars in the UK.
What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?
Without seeing the wording of the law it's not yet possible to tell whether that engine would be allowed in 2040 or not. If not, there would still be plenty of time to update and modify the law.
But in the end, they accomplished nothing
Laws on agricultural use of pesticides and other chemicals have had a material impact on the quality of food. Laws on emissions from cars have had a material impact on air quality. Taxes (enabled by laws) have had a massive impact on car fuel economy. Subsidies (enabled by laws) have been essential to companies like Tesla.
Why would laws suddenly stop working on this occasion?
Slashdot Mirror
Not the case at all. Determining that you're connected from the EU doesn't require any collection or use of your personal data.
Even the IP address, if you want to claim that's in scope.
It doesn't address the root issue of limiting the front end collection and using of data in the first place which is the real problem.
Collection of data is a form of processing data, and requires a lawful basis for so doing.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organis...
Because too many companies don't offer an opt-out, don't assure correctness of data, don't adequately protect data, don't give a shit about consumer privacy.
GDPR doesn't prevent any of the activities you've indicated you undertake. You should welcome it, it'll stop other people selling private data and using the revenue to boost their competitiveness against you.
those small amounts of data they need to run their business now have huge handling requirements
No. Anybody PCI compliant is already meeting far more onerous expectations. Anybody that secures the data used by their business and manages it properly is already compliant, unless their business is the data itself.
That does still leave a lot of organisations that have shit data protection technologies, processes and implementation, but since they're putting their customers' data at risk why shouldn't they be invited to run their business properly?
it can't be as simple as a form letter that says "nothing" because while your order is being processed, they do have personal info, and it needs to handle that.
That's not strictly true. If all orders are processed, closed and the associated data deleted within a couple of weeks then all data requests can be responded to 21 days later with "Sorry, who are you?"
In the UK a post code can identify an individual.
Not often, but there are areas in which only one person lives.
Splunk storage sure as fuck isn't.
Are you really getting value from eight year old log files?
No. You may however store and process the data required to meet that legal obligation.
You're misunderstanding the law. Please educate yourself before trying to tell anybody anything about it.
However, you do prove the point beautifully: Americans haven't got a fucking hope of complying with GDPR, so of course it makes sense for them to block the EU.
'All' you need to do is.. list of things someone on the Internet has claims is all you need to do.
It's also clearly wrong. You need to validate that list, for a start. That's not a zero cost activity all by itself.
If you'd rather pay for a service to block EU users than fulfill that, I don't want you having my data.
I'd rather understand why they want to block EU users and what they're going to do with my data. I think assuming they have ill intent is unjustified.
You do though need to know this, what the role of the data protection officer entails, and how else to comply with GDPR.
If I was a beekeeper in the US selling craft honey online I suspect ditching EU customers is by far the optimal response.
800km? A high end touring car has a range of 800 miles right now.
I'm not saying 800km is insufficient range, I'm just challenging the "EV range is on track to beat ICE". It's not.
Given that over 50% of the people killed by the US police in 2017 are white men, who in turn are only around 30-35% of the population in the US, you appear to be using fundamentally flawed assumptions.
'quite endangered' is pretty fucking nonsensical. Law abiding tourists are more likely to catch leprosy from an armadillo than be killed by the police.
To be fair, I wouldn't want anybody browsing on my PC (and able to see my bookmarks) knowing I visited Reddit either.
I think you're missing the history here though. Fortnite was originally not a 'battle royale' style game at all, and many of the early supporters (and people that put money into it) feel betrayed by its switch in focus. They very much drop the review scores.
Then there's the ongoing changes that any online game gets. A great online game may be changed by the developers to try and keep players engaged and interested, but invariably some of the original community will dislike the changes - the switch to Battle Royale being a prime example.
While those changes may result in new players with a positive view of the game, they're also likely to result in poor reviews from players who feel aggrieved at the perceived damage to their entertainment of choice.
It's one reason Steam now differentiates between overall and recent reviews.
Why do you care? The post was modded 'informative' so clearly people felt it contributed to the discussion.
Since voting is a subset of talking, you appear to support IDs for both.
Why?
If I wanted American bases in the UK closed I'd campaign in the UK for the UK Government to work to that end.
That doesn't preclude writing to US politicians (or even candidates) but really that's not where my time and resources are best applied.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. The. Popular Vote.
Don't be silly, of course there is.
It just lacks relevance when determining which candidate becomes president.
incel Trump Eunuch
The insults keep getting more childish. But please, why capitalise Eunuch?
That doesn't surprise me at all.
The Mercedes C and E hybrids are basically combustion engine cars with electric assist to give them better acceleration and cheaper tax. Very popular on company car schemes that heavily factor emissions into prices.
Entirely irrelevant when real-world emissions are taken into account.
We're talking about the UK here. The sun does appear occasionally but on average a car roof solar panel isn't going to do much more than power the radio. If that.
Too bad they are considered vehicles that require annual inspections, taxes and road insurance in Europe (and requires you as the importer to make them pass inspection); in Asia where they are considered bicycles they are very convenient indeed.
Given that Chinese road traffic deaths are over six times as high (per 100k population) as the UK, maybe some of that regulation is actively saving lives (plus various economic benefits).
(could be worse, I could have used Thailand as the comparator)
Looking at the trends in EV range it is clear that the potential range of EV will exceed ICE vehicles at some point in the future
Right. Come back when a car with a fuel tank as large as those batteries doesn't go further.
Car fuel tanks balance weight, interior space and range. Electric cars will need to do the same - you aren't going to sell many Chevvy Suburbans with the boot full of batteries in the UK where they wont fit into parking spaces.
Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done
In the last ten years average wages in the UK have risen 17%
The price of new cars has dropped over 5%
-- https://www.racfoundation.org/...
If only the Government made everything that much more expensive.
My issue is that the U.K. (or any) government does not get to dictate how motor companies choose to innovate.
The people of the UK, through the actions of their Government, do however get to dictate which technologies are not permitted to be sold in their country.
If a car company doesn't wish to "innovate" by putting a 51 mile range battery in with the combustion engine then nobody will give a shit. They just wont be able to sell cars in the UK.
What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?
Without seeing the wording of the law it's not yet possible to tell whether that engine would be allowed in 2040 or not. If not, there would still be plenty of time to update and modify the law.
But in the end, they accomplished nothing
Laws on agricultural use of pesticides and other chemicals have had a material impact on the quality of food.
Laws on emissions from cars have had a material impact on air quality.
Taxes (enabled by laws) have had a massive impact on car fuel economy.
Subsidies (enabled by laws) have been essential to companies like Tesla.
Why would laws suddenly stop working on this occasion?