Comment by JumpCrisscross
1 year ago
> 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.
Then why is it not more prevalent now that the FDA is owned by the food-producing cartels?
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.