4 ms·

For a little while, until there's more general support from third parties to help small businesses address this. Just like taxes, insurance, and everything else

For a little while, until there's more general support from third parties to help small businesses address this. Just like taxes, insurance, and everything else small and medium businesses are required to deal with. Oh, and EU users finally get the privacy they deserve.

ucaetano 9y ago
> For a little while, until there's more general support from third parties to help small businesses address this. By subsidizing them? By exempting them? Both are terrible ideas.
- mercer 9y ago
  By guiding their business to be compliant and privacy-conscious. I really do think that's a good thing in this case, even as someone who is generally not a fan of the 'we will help you navigate the bureaucracy' type companies. All this could backfire, but it's better than nothing, at least.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > By guiding their business to be compliant and privacy-conscious. That doesn't solve any issues. The cost isn't knowing how to be compliant, but all the operations required for compliance. Even if they have a business model that is 100% compliant, they still have to account for the large costs of reporting and certifying the compliance. For example, replying to all those letters that OP mentioned.
    - tmuir 9y ago
      This is the very sector that has only achieved its current status by automating away the menial tasks that you claim will overwhelm them. If humans can figure out how to make two rockets land autonomously and concurrently, I don't really see us getting tripped up on this one.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        > This is the very sector that has only achieved its current status by automating away the menial tasks that you claim will overwhelm them. If humans can figure out how to make two rockets land autonomously and concurrently, I don't really see us getting tripped up on this one. Guess you didn't read my first comment, did you? Facebook and Google will be fine, as they are big enough to automate this. Smaller companies, especially local ones, won't.
        tmuir 9y ago
        I can make the very same retort to you: In a separate post, I said that solving these sorts of "burden of compliance" problems has continually defined the successful players of the internet industry for the last quarter century. I don't argue they've solved them all, nor that they don't fall prey to regulation themselves. The extent to which companies start wilting under this burden will also be the extent other companies will address those pain points like they always have, with machines that don't get stressed out because their data and requirements grew faster than they could. I don't see the immovable object here.
mercer 9y ago
Yeah, there's a huge opportunity for 'pickaxe sellers' in this new world, and they'd actually be doing something valuable this time.
dotsh 9y ago
> Oh, and EU users finally get the privacy they deserve. Of course we do. GCHQ will defend us if someone want to violate our privacy. ;)
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  GCHQ checked itself out of EU ;).
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    That's worse, not better Because then they only have to follow UKs laws (once this happens, of course)

ucaetano 9y ago

> For a little while, until there's more general support from third parties to help small businesses address this. By subsidizing them? By exempting them? Both are terrible ideas.

mercer 9y ago
By guiding their business to be compliant and privacy-conscious. I really do think that's a good thing in this case, even as someone who is generally not a fan of the 'we will help you navigate the bureaucracy' type companies. All this could backfire, but it's better than nothing, at least.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > By guiding their business to be compliant and privacy-conscious. That doesn't solve any issues. The cost isn't knowing how to be compliant, but all the operations required for compliance. Even if they have a business model that is 100% compliant, they still have to account for the large costs of reporting and certifying the compliance. For example, replying to all those letters that OP mentioned.
  - tmuir 9y ago
    This is the very sector that has only achieved its current status by automating away the menial tasks that you claim will overwhelm them. If humans can figure out how to make two rockets land autonomously and concurrently, I don't really see us getting tripped up on this one.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > This is the very sector that has only achieved its current status by automating away the menial tasks that you claim will overwhelm them. If humans can figure out how to make two rockets land autonomously and concurrently, I don't really see us getting tripped up on this one. Guess you didn't read my first comment, did you? Facebook and Google will be fine, as they are big enough to automate this. Smaller companies, especially local ones, won't.
      - tmuir 9y ago
        I can make the very same retort to you: In a separate post, I said that solving these sorts of "burden of compliance" problems has continually defined the successful players of the internet industry for the last quarter century. I don't argue they've solved them all, nor that they don't fall prey to regulation themselves. The extent to which companies start wilting under this burden will also be the extent other companies will address those pain points like they always have, with machines that don't get stressed out because their data and requirements grew faster than they could. I don't see the immovable object here.

mercer 9y ago

Yeah, there's a huge opportunity for 'pickaxe sellers' in this new world, and they'd actually be doing something valuable this time.

dotsh 9y ago

> Oh, and EU users finally get the privacy they deserve. Of course we do. GCHQ will defend us if someone want to violate our privacy. ;)

TeMPOraL 9y ago
GCHQ checked itself out of EU ;).
- raverbashing 9y ago
  That's worse, not better Because then they only have to follow UKs laws (once this happens, of course)