zlacker

[return to "GDPR: Don't Panic"]
◧
1. mrleit+s2[view] [source] 2018-05-18 08:30:24
>>grabeh+(OP)
The GDPR gets so much hate because it hits so many businesses where it hurts: data. GDPR "simply" gives you guidelines on how you can handle data from people within the EU. And that that data cannot be handled so liberally as it has been before. Of course that's annoying from a business perspective, but from an individuals privacy perspective, it's fantastic.
◧◩
2. omgint+1e[view] [source] 2018-05-18 10:45:38
>>mrleit+s2
I don't think that's fair.

I rather think it gets a lot of hate because it leaves a lot to the discretion of the regulators. Overall, the SMEs I talk to don't have a problem with regulating data (most think it will pop the gangrenous ad-tech bubble). It's the lack of predictability that bothers them.

◧◩◪
3. DanBC+zk[view] [source] 2018-05-18 12:13:14
>>omgint+1e
The "lack of predictability" is a good thing.

"You're making efforts to comply with the regulations, but could you have a look at how you're storing this and that?"

vs

"You're not compliant with the regulation so we have to impose a fine"

Are you really saying you'd prefer the second?

◧◩◪◨
4. Nasrud+2E[view] [source] 2018-05-18 14:57:41
>>DanBC+zk
It is the converse of the second that worries people. Look at an ironically US example of Slingbox forwarding TV antennas to other locations in a 1:1 fashion specifically to not count as rebroadcasting. That took a Supreme Court case and much legal maneuvering to sink something that was legal because they didn't like it.

People are rightfully worried about "you followed the law completely but we don't like it so massive fines!".

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. shabbl+fK[view] [source] 2018-05-18 15:42:53
>>Nasrud+2E
> People are rightfully worried about "you followed the law completely but we don't like it so massive fines!"

That seems largely independent of how precise/vague the laws are, if you're expecting the enforcing party to find a way to get you regardless.

The 'defence' here seems to be that you can make a decent argument that you've taken appropriate measures to conform with your [reasonable] interpretation of the rules.

The regulator can object (and possibly penalise you) if they think you're not acting in good faith, or you have a grossly unreasonable interpretation of those rules. You can object to an unfair interpretation of the rules by the regulator as well.

Either way, if The Powers That Be want you nailed to a wall, they'll find a way, this particular regulation or not.

[go to top]