Comment by max_
1 year ago
GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse.
The problem with English law, is that you have to explicitly declare what is wrong a head of time. So we just end up with endless needs for regulation ls.
If we had legal systems like Hammurabi Codes, they work work way better.
You'd be surprised what French data authority (CNIL) has to say about this[1]:
> Any use of personal data for an objective that is incompatible with the primary purpose of proces- sing is a misuse that is subject to administrative or criminal sanctions. > For example, a mechanic cannot sell the vehicle’s technical data to insurers to enable them to infer the driving profiles of their policyholders.
There may be a lack of enforcement, but it seems this type of data may be protected under GDPR.
[1] https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/cnil_pack_v...
With good encryption we wouldn't need to spend alot of time trying to enforce these laws
As a corporation, would I use your encryption standards if I stand to make money legally by not using them? You'll need to enforce encryption usage to force me to use these. Which currently requires these kind of laws.
What do you have in mind to ensure standards that are good for end-users are put in my place?
> GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse
You’re using one badly-written law to discard a category.
Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?
> Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?
How many deaths happened because of excessive regulation, extreme delays, and overall refusal to acknowledge other medical bodies' acceptance of treatment?
The CATO institute, a Republican think-tank, put a number on FDA drug law alone from 20000-120000 deaths per decade. (I was aiming at another more impartial org, but sigh)
https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-pa...
Side note: CATO isn’t a particularly credible source. (Like Greenpeace.)
That said, even though I agree with them in this case, that bolsters the case for regulation being effective. If the FDA were ineffective, pharmaceuticals could “play…legal gymnastics and pay rudimentary fines” to get around their power. In other words, the magnitude is undisputed; we’re debating the sign.
Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people. Monitoring devices so that you can "make them safer" or "save the children" or whichever other BS reason they give is easy to give them a pass on.
> Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people
Sure. It was still prevalent prior to the F&DA of 1906.
1 reply →
How is GDPR badly written?
> How is GDPR badly written?
Enforcement is fractured. It’s a mandatory-complaint driven model, which is both intensive (every complaint demands manpower on both the regulator and regulated’s sides) and prone to abuse (known tactic for quashing European competition: herding complaints). All that means it’s ambiguously burdensome, which means there is a fixed cost to compliance even if you aren’t doing anything wrong.
I mean the one thing GDPR did was scare the ever living daylight out of quite a few engineering teams and executives. Which honestly was what they industry really needed, people just needed to consider the data collection a bit more.
And fines have been levied and are levied constantly. It's mostly a man power problem as to how many, but the fines pay for more man power in some places so it all works out. It's just slow, which is why people always complain that nothing ever happens.