zlacker

>>grabeh+(OP)
Exactly. People try to explain to me how it is impossible to comply and usually it turns out that it would be easy. I think the problem most of time that people misunderstanding the requirements or not reading GDPR (not even TLDR versions).

>>Stream+Y
It is easy if they believe particular person's interpretation. But that doesn't mean they are right. People have huge problems with interpreting written word if it is not written without a room for interpretation and if you add to the mix bureaucrats that have targets to meet you'll see it will not be easy at all.

>>merino+m1
Am in EU, am involved in some compliance stuff and have talked to plenty others at other companies, and it really does seem to be a nothing-to-see-here for all companies except the sleezy ones.

>>willva+E1
Is there even a single thing forbidden under GDPR that wasn't already forbidden before in at least half a dozen member states? In that case, it makes everything easier except for ignoring requirements.

>>usrusr+C2
I'm not certain about the other memberstates but to my knowledge the privacy law hasn't changed that much. There is a good increase in the amount of generating an audit log of any privacy sensitive stuff you do and of course the various "Right to be *" variants but those are largely non-issues.

German courts already considered a EULA or "check box to consent and get thing" a non-binding consent (to some extend).

Largely, if you are running afoul the GDPR in germany there is basically two options A) you rely on adsense a lot and B) you ran afoul the previous laws already.

So, overall, I would say that yeah, most of the stuff forbidden by the GDPR was already forbidden. The GDPR grants you new rights and requires corporations to ensure compliance however, that's new.

Plus the teeth in form of pretty hefty fine limits. Which is good IMO.