Innovative stalkerware?
@"GDPR AND THE LOST GENERATION OF *INNOVATIVE* APPS"
Apparently, not only did 1/3rd of apps not exist due to GDPR, but those apps would have been innovative if they had existed. App doing innovative things, that the other 3 million apps don't do.... yet the paper doesn't cite an example of lost innovation, or even attempt to explain how GDPR made that innovative app impossible to make.
Oh fuck off.
There's gold in users data, there's always some company that can make money from selling people's private data, that money is extracted from those users directly or directly, which is why they don't give their consent.
If you remove the "innovative" claim, which you did not attempt to justify, what are you left with?
@"Under GDPR, app developers face the cost of complying with rules that require consent for data gathering, transparent data processing, purpose limitation, accuracy, limited retention, confidentiality, and accountability."
Without GDPR, app developers would be free to gather as much data as they can grab off the users device, in secret, keep it forever and sell it to whomever for whatever purpose. Apparently what millions of apps were doing and would rather not have to explain themselves to their users with a simple dialog. Those apps added nothing innovative to the market that the users wanted and were prepared to sacrifice their privacy for. i.e. a free market *informed* choice. Is a stalker a stalker, if the person doesn't know they're being followed? Does that make it better? No, it makes it worse.
If anything EU should look over the pond at the Republican Taliban laws they're pushing at State level post Roe v Wade. Privacy rights need to be much stronger than GDPR. The Taliban want a blanket ban on abortion from conception (Louisiana), and death penalty for women who have an abortion (Louisiana , Georgia, Idaho), criminal prosecution of women who seek abortions (Alabama), make it a crime to cross state lines for an abortion (26 states passing laws criminalizing abortion). Imagine how the location data can be used to track women who go to an abortion clinic in another state, or how a period tracking app might be used to prosecute women whose skip a period, or how the use of the baby emoji has life or death consequences.
Consent wouldn't be enough, the Taliban would simply pass laws compelling consent. The fact the data was collected at all, would make it available to them.
It's not difficult to see how women will be murdered by the Taliban due to their location data.
You could argue (as Amy Coney Barrett did) that its economy, the US needs a ‘Domestic Supply Of Infants’ for the Adoption industry, apparently women are baby farms, working for the adoption industry for free, against their will. If they won't take those babies to term, they should be murdered for non-compliance. Not that adoption is there for unwanted pregnancies carried to term, but that the women exist to feed the adoption industry to supply kids to childless couples. i.e. innovative business.
Just as you can claim that the "innovative" benefit from apps that were not worth making, is somehow worth the loss of privacy that scrapping GDPR would enable.
But I would argue that women should be able to trust EU sourced apps with their private data. Data that potentially could cost them their lives.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
