4 ms·

If I'm following your hypothetical situation correctly, you're claiming that an international company would rather not do business than to email the privacy com

by Azzy 9y ago

If I'm following your hypothetical situation correctly, you're claiming that an international company would rather not do business than to email the privacy commission for feedback? Which is standard procedure when in doubt...

kodablah 9y ago
It's not about doubt of the rules. Though there is extreme subjectivity, that's not my point in these posts. It's about risk mitigation (i.e. the extreme size of the penalties coupled with potential subjective enforcement). I'm not claiming anything about an international company, I am talking about small startups that might not even go completely international at first. Why, if I have all the customers I can handle right now as I grow would I subject myself to more regulations for no reason? It's not that hypothetical as I've been in this with young companies where we were deciding where to launch first (for beta or actual launches). Granted there was nothing then precluding EU users in those times, in fact we preferred it to help w/ i18n vetting. Nowadays, I'd just as soon leave EU countries off of the select box on my signup form, and not worry about GPDR compliance (again, even though I am probably compliant and believe in the spirit of the rules).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vsl 9y ago
  Exactly. To a large extent, I - a citizen of an EU country - can already see the effect. Just look at how many electronics companies don’t sell in EU. There’s a Swiss company making great routers that outright says it’s because of RoHS. And as of the earlier arguments like “no loss” or “competition would step up” - look how few EU tech companies there are. There’s a reason for that. The armchair commenters here aren’t EU business people, and it shows. Around here, GPDR is considered a disaster, in the usual style of EU’s heavy-handed, poorly thought-out regulations. It adds so much bureaucracy and expenses - even for companies that do nothing shady - that it is absurd.

by Azzy 9y ago

kodablah 9y ago

It's not about doubt of the rules. Though there is extreme subjectivity, that's not my point in these posts. It's about risk mitigation (i.e. the extreme size of the penalties coupled with potential subjective enforcement). I'm not claiming anything about an international company, I am talking about small startups that might not even go completely international at first. Why, if I have all the customers I can handle right now as I grow would I subject myself to more regulations for no reason? It's not that hypothetical as I've been in this with young companies where we were deciding where to launch first (for beta or actual launches). Granted there was nothing then precluding EU users in those times, in fact we preferred it to help w/ i18n vetting. Nowadays, I'd just as soon leave EU countries off of the select box on my signup form, and not worry about GPDR compliance (again, even though I am probably compliant and believe in the spirit of the rules).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vsl 9y ago
Exactly. To a large extent, I - a citizen of an EU country - can already see the effect. Just look at how many electronics companies don’t sell in EU. There’s a Swiss company making great routers that outright says it’s because of RoHS. And as of the earlier arguments like “no loss” or “competition would step up” - look how few EU tech companies there are. There’s a reason for that. The armchair commenters here aren’t EU business people, and it shows. Around here, GPDR is considered a disaster, in the usual style of EU’s heavy-handed, poorly thought-out regulations. It adds so much bureaucracy and expenses - even for companies that do nothing shady - that it is absurd.