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
Do you have any experience with a Eu country internet regulatory service? I have experience with the CNIL (The french one), and they were helpfull and yes, good-natured. Part of our demand to be able to host data from hospital was drafted with their help, when they had no legal obligation to help us. A friend who work in a legal/tech startup also had good experience with them, and i don't know anybody who ever had a bad run with them. So if you have contradictory experience, please share them. Until then, i'll still take all this "GDPR will kill tech companies" articles from people who only experienced the US legal system as jokes.

>>orwin+H2
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I was saying that from a legal complience perspective, the notion that the regulatary body is "good-natured" is meaningless. You have to comply with ever letter of the GDPR, you can't just do most of it, or interpret it loosely, and say "oh but they are good-natured people they will understand.". Legal complience doesn't work like that AT ALL!

>>Anabee+O3
> I was saying that from a legal complience perspective, the notion that the regulatary body is "good-natured" is meaningless.

It's not, because as the article explains, experience with the existing regime shows that, the good natured regulator will send you a helpful and explanatory warning letter that tells you what you need to do to become compliant before jumping into fines.

An un-good-natured regulator would behave rather differently.