zlacker

>>grabeh+(OP)
The problem of multiple ambiguities in GDPR hasn't really been addressed here.

Also, must be nice to live in a country where the regulator is as benevolent and reasonable as is described in this article.

I think it's ok for foreigners to be skeptical of this promise, as the article implies that this reasonableness is not encoded in law.

>>raquo+e2
Law is by its nature open to interpretation and based on precedent. Otherwise there wouldn't be courts of appeal and supreme courts. What's so special about GDPR that makes you think it will be abused more than other laws?

>>frereu+k3
The "special" part is that it prescribes very specific things in very ambiguous terms.

You have to change what you're doing to be compliant, but you don't know how. And for some aspects, no one knows how.

And GDPR actually has teeth. It's ripe for selective enforcement and other bureaucracy failures.