Comment by denton-scratch
3 years ago
> If it’s bad law, it’s bad law.
Presumably it's your opinion that it's a bad law. The majority of Europeans think it's a good law - possibly the best regulation the EU has ever promulgated.
3 years ago
> If it’s bad law, it’s bad law.
Presumably it's your opinion that it's a bad law. The majority of Europeans think it's a good law - possibly the best regulation the EU has ever promulgated.
Bad law for the reasons above.
Ie, onerous toward regular businesses Ie, used to greatly expand bureaucracy and overhead Ie, used by unelected bureaucrats to wage battles of personal vendetta against specific companies instead of doing what laws do, which is set unambiguous standards for all
In fact it's not at all onerous, unless you are determined to violate it's provisions. If your business doesn't depend on privacy violations, then the "bureaucracy" that GDPR calls for is trivially easy to implement. There are no licences, and no registration requirements. Provided you aren't playing fast and loose with the personal data of Europeans, you're fine.
There's no "personal vendettas" going on; can you substantiate that allegation at all? The GDPR applies to everyone equally. And unlike some laws, it's fairly easy to read; it's meant to be understood. Don't bother reading some biased summary of the Regulation; read the GDPR itself. That's the best guidance on the intent, and the best guidance on how to comply.
/me: former data protection officer at a web development outfit.
"iTs nOt aT aLl oNeRoUs" said the DPO. lol, what a clown. So all these companies scrambling to hire lawyers to document every single aspect of the "legal basis" or whatever nonsense is in the language are just crazy in your books?
And that's just ONE sub clause of a hundred or so.
The overhead is both in the arbitrary nature of the requirements (Good Laws are objective, not subjective) and the sheer lack of consistency in the enforcement is ridiculous for any European business. Consider the adequacy clause that's taken decades to litigate and is still fucking criminal as of this writing.
Answer this simple question: "Can I, as a small business use AWS services that may or may not have a compute instance located in the EU?". You know pretty well what the answer is there, so, basically every small business in the EU is in violation right now. And it's bureaucratic assholery that keeps this deliberately inconsistent so they can choose to enforce it at any point of their choosing (read, a negative PR cycle) - Monarchy, inconsistency, arbitrary and ambiguous rulemaking that has tossed out the interests of businesses.
The vendetta against Google is well documented and it's insulting for you to even say otherwise. Look at the most recent example of the CNIL (Frances privacy enforcement body, a part of the executive) choosing arbitrary standards and refusing to even elaborate on concrete standards for recommended analytics solutions that businesses may use. They have gone full psycho with not even wanting to give Google the opportunity to come into compliance with standards that they choose not to reveal and instead openly ask industry to turn Google Analytics off. Its ridiculous and bad for their own economies.
7 replies →
GDPR compliance is actually trivial to implement if you manage your users’ data in ways that wouldn’t surprise them negatively. There's not much more.
> unelected bureaucrats
Does the American elect the IRS or the FTC bureaucrat?
Well, read the thread above you. GDPR is so complex that even the people who passed it can’t tell you the scope given the intentional ambiguity.
I have officials in the EU on the record that IP addresses are deemed personal information and if your business uses AWS and unintentionally passed IP addresses over to any resource in the US, you are technically in violation.
Will you be hanged for this today? Probably not. But all it takes is one negative press cycle for the idiots there to interpret and enforce this as they have shown the willingness to do in the past.
The point about unelected bureaucrats isn’t the unelected part. It’s the lack of oversight or consequence or clear demarcation of legislative power from the executive.
The bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to issue multiple specific rules that go over and beyond the text of any law. See the case of the CNIL in France. They had a court ruling around their rules for cookies on Google go against them and they continued to insist that they would enforce said law. They issued an “FAQ” on their website that indicated threatening language against businesses that flouted their previous comments that were now deemed incorrect by a court of law and had the audacity to press on.
Like I said, the EU is an abusive monarchy
11 replies →