zlacker

>>grabeh+(OP)
I was hoping for a nice respite to the anti-GDPR stuff we've seen recently, but this is just naked propaganda. In particular, the sentence:

"the GDPR has the potential to escalate to those levels but in the spirit of the good natured enforcers ..."

The author seems to have the idea that bureaucratic EU systems are inherently "good" and that even if things look bad on paper, it will be fine because they are "good" people. This is not how the legal system or legal compliance works.

>>Anabee+s1
I think this is a very distinct difference between the EU with the scaremongering removed, and e.g. the US: My experience of the EU has been that they've consistently looked out for my interests. Even in the face of the local government (I live in the UK) that have kept fighting for positions I find abhorrent (e.g. UK governments keep complaining about having to abide by EU human rights regulations for example).

Yes, we shouldn't aim to give governments power to push things to an extreme, but on the other hand we should also ensure that they have the ability to actually react to serious abuses.

In particularly in the area of data protection, I don't know of a single example where the rules have been pushed to the extreme. If anything, as a private citizen I'm disappointed there's not been stricter enforcement. As someone who has had to deal with it on the corporate side as well, it's not been hard to comply with.

Enforcement here is generally always strongly predicated on not jumping straight to the strictest possible outcome, but in carefully considering how serious a transgression is. It's not that EU systems are inherently good, but that history and practice have shown that when they give flexibility, it takes serious abuses and ill intent to end up with the strictest reactions allowed, and there'd also be little reason to assume that anyone rushing to the strictest interpretations possible wouldn't get shut down hard by the courts.

>>vidarh+83
You are transposing your like of certain EU institutions (human rights regulations) and grafting them onto this legislation. This isn't how it works, not least because there has been no case-law yet, so we have no idea how it will be interpreted. Therefore a legal compliance unit has no choice but to follow GDPR the letter, which is hugely difficult and bureaucratic. The notion that they are "good-natured" is meaningless in a legal sense.

It seems many commentators here are confusing criticism of the GDPR with criticism of the EU itself. Surely people are sophisticated enough to understand that they are 2 hugely different things, and that a robust criticism of regulations and laws are part of a healthy democratic society.

>>Anabee+64
As mentioned elsewhere, these regulators have been operating for a very long time. Even when dealing with the whole Facebook / Cambridge Analytica they're moving quite slowly. There have been various legal changes regarding privacy in the past. E.g. for The Netherlands it is not allowed to have a checkbox on by default to sign up to a mailing list. There's a fine if you don't abide and this fine can be very hefty. In case of problems the regulator first reaches out, a fine is the very last resort.

There has been ample history on how these regulators have been working over the past 20-40 years.