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
What you're describing is the way common law works. Most European jurisdictions work under a civil law system.

>>Bjoern+t4
It's not black and white, precedent exists in civil law systems as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Civil_law_systems

>>icebra+B6
Yes, common law and civil law systems have been converging to some extent. In common law systems you have increasing reliance on statutory law while civil law systems increasingly make use of precedents. Still, the basic principles remain.