Don't read this. There's so much misunderstanding in this article, I'd be surprised if any good discussion came from it. And refuting it would take ages.

For example:

> And apparently typing your name, age and other information is not consent. How is this supposed to work by the way? I give you my name but I don’t consent to you using it or remember it?

The way it's phrased is misleading. If you need the data and are going to use it in the obvious way, e.g. for shipping a parcel to my address, legitimate interests works fine. If you're a scumbag marketer or data broker/reseller (etc), then yeah, it's going to impact you. That was the idea.

So instead of bikeshedding arbitrary scenarios, let's do something more productive with our day.

This is just a weird article.

> But do you know what data I have access to when you come on my website ? Well only your IP and some information about your computer and browser. That’s all.

It's pretty well known by now that that's often more than enough to identify a specific user. "That's all" really undersells it.

> It’s true I can create an ID and save it on your browser (I can do much more but we will stay focus). Your browser, not your computer.

That's effectively the same thing -- the vast vast majority of users don't use more than one browser per device, and I'd be willing to be that the few who do use more than one mostly use them for different websites.

> So the very first thing you need to understand about data privacy is that YOU protect your own data by not giving it away without thinking.

And here it is. This article is basically just victim blaming. "You didn't want this website to identify you based on the unique combination of user agent, viewport, and feature detection? Then you shouldn't have visited this website with that user agent, screen size, and set of features enabled in your browser."

I don't view GDPR to be quite as useless as the author does, but the point about the user having to protect their data themselves is spot on. GDPR only protects you against good actors that are under EU jurisdiction. Everyone else could very well be doing whatever they want with the data you leak. The EU can't fine a Chinese company if the Chinese company has no presence in the EU.

Another thing the author doesn't mention is that GDPR sets a minimum amount of cost/effort to run a website that's way beyond the actual hardware cost and the cost of making the website itself. It requires every website operator to be familiar with how GDPR works, because you need to know whether you're collecting personal data (you probably are) and how you need to handle it. Furthermore, if you are collecting personal data then you must respond to emails of users who request to know what data you know about them within a set amount of time. In the case of a small website, such as a forum or blog, I would consider the cost imposed by GDPR to be greater than the cost of making the website itself and renting hardware to run it. I think it disproportionately impacts smaller sites. It essentially leads to small sites simply breaking the law and hoping that nobody complains about them.

GDPR is a fundamental step towards controls of data as a basic human right. It does not define clicking on banners or cookie disclaimers. He's mad that the world hasn't already matured their adherence and that's reasonable but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

GDPR is a great step towards empowering consumers. Give the industry and regulators more than 1 year to change it's behaviors and set new standards.

All I see is a lot of websites with a cookie notice that I agree to.

Interesting perspective and I can see some of the intent here, but it takes an odd slant to the issue. There are a few failures in logic here (random number becoming PII, only tracking on one browser, laws protecting you from getting robbed) that detract from the goal of GDPR which is to outline the user's digital rights, not define how data can be collected. GDPR does not define the technological methods because those will always be evolving, much like our understanding and expectations of data privacy will evolve. I agree that users need to educate themselves on how to protect their own data, but there is a ton of technology that they either aren't aware is being used, or simply don't understand. GDPR isn't perfect but it will help in the long run. Here is a summary of some of the details and how it will impact what developers need do as they architect software. Some companies will take it seriously, others won't. Then consumers may decide who to do business with. https://fusionauth.io/blog/2019/01/29/white-paper-developers...

Here's an issue we ran into when implementing GDPR: marketing software keeps a database of people who have opted out, so even if that email address shows up again, we don't risk spamming them. But if they opt out now, under GDPR we have to delete them completely, even from the opt-out list. So we can't remember not to email or track you.

The author also points out the double set of cookies, which is how most sites deal with tracking. One set of cookies that do not collect PII, that just tell the other set of cookies to turn on or off.

I respect that the writers of GDPR did not confer with the industry insiders beforehand. However, with how poorly some of it understands the technology (implementation of cookies is a great example), I wish they would have had a bit more understanding and drafted a better bill.

A law is only as effective as it is enforced

>This is so broad and vague that basically if I generate a random number to identify you on my website it becomes your personal data.

That's cool. If something can identify me uniquely then it's personal data.

That's the general issue with regulation, it protects the existing large players in a space by adding a higher barrier to entry for competitors. So now instead of hosting your own forum or website you'll use Squarespace or Discord or Disqus instead.

First of all, GDPR does not apply to personal sites. ( https://law.stackexchange.com/a/28086 - see current "in force" version of the directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj see recital 18)

> [...] GDPR sets a minimum amount of cost/effort to run a website [...]

This is simply false. If you want to post something on the 'net, nothing changes. You want to count page downloads? (You know those old school CGI counters.) Nothing changes. You want to know how many individual visits you got? Well, you need to try to distinguish between new and returning visitors, hence you might put a cookie on the visitor's browser/client/useragent, now you need to ask nicely, because it's eerily easy to use that cookie for a lot of other purposes. (Similarly if you would try to use something else, like IP address, and/or browser fingerprinting.)

And so on. Yes, I like pretty graphs about visitors (browser screen size distribution, fancy geoip charts, etc), but so do the people that live off the not so innocent usage of this kind of data.

And yes, if you collect personal data, then you should be able to protect it. This was always the case, GDPR simply states this and tries to create a mechanism that forces data holders to act accordingly (via the mandatory data breach reporting). Again, similarly, if you handle a lot of data you should be able to accurately take a stock of what kind of data you have about whom, hence the requirement to respond to these inquiries.

> I think it disproportionately impacts smaller sites.

Agreed. But small sites were always at the mercy of random script kiddies. They always lacked resources to properly handle updates/upgrades, security, data, end-of-life termination, etc.

GDPR at least makes WordPress, discourse, and random blog and forum engines able to deal with the reality of how much value their databases represent nowadays.