zlacker

>>ahuber+(OP)
This regulation is so shitty. I'm quite sure that it is supported by big actors in the end, because the end goal is to ensure to have a regulatory barrier that will avoid small actors to be able to strive in the software field.

Also, to avoid "dangerous" not yet professional amateurs having a chance against big editors.

>>greatg+2b
This was the first question on my mind as well. How will this affect the one-man webshop owner or software developer? Seems only big established firms will be able to conform to this?

>>Etienn+lf
This question was asked a lot when GDPR came around, and it's essentially an implication that the regulator will act in bad faith.

Courts and regulators, particularily European ones, understand when there's a "will" to follow the law. It's one of the differences between "rules-based" and "principles-based" regulations.

>>17100541

>>EMIREL+Sg
I don’t understand? So you should only in principle audit your Wordpress blog?

>>Etienn+wi
Questions:

- If you run a commercial kitchen on your own (or, let's say, with a staff of 2-3 people), can you ignore the food safety regulations? The fire regulations?

- If you run a one-man plumbing company, can you ignore safety regulations? Water regulations? Sewage regulations?

etc.

Why is it than when it comes to "commercial software" it is inevitably "oh my god these laws are so hard, why should I as one-man company be forced to comply with them". Because that is literally your job.

>>troupo+hk
Bad software won't give you food poisoning.

Regulations can make sense for software that could cause physical harm - like the software in an implanted medical device - but most software doesn't fall in that category. The CRA is about "security" not about "physical harm" - they are two different things. Regulations for the latter would likely receive less pushback.