5 ms·

Are you saying GDPR was ready then? How come if today it is not clear and has ambiguous interpretations or lack of?

by merinowool 9y ago

icebraining 9y ago
All complex laws have ambiguous interpretations.
- merinowool 9y ago
  All bad laws. edit: I am not saying the idea behind GDPR is bad - it is amazing. But execution is really bad.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I disagree; all complex laws. That's the main reason for the existence of supreme courts; to decide on a reading when courts below disagree ("circuit split", in the US).
    - merinowool 9y ago
      Right. It shouldn't be okay to push bad (in the sense: incomplete, not researched enough etc.) laws because there is supreme court.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        My claim is that you can't avoid it. It's like trying to write a large program with zero bugs without being able to test it. Citing Knuth, "beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." To put it another way: can you cite any complex bill that hasn't ever gone to the Supreme Court?
wsy 9y ago
It was clear enough to know at least 2 years ago that you can't just make personal data public on the Web. Here, as in all cases, the supposed vagueness is just a lame excuse to not even start an honest effort of protecting personal data. ICANN obviously tried to play a game here (let's sit this out and see what happens), and now is under water.
- merinowool 9y ago
  I am not saying that this is an excuse to not protect the data. I am saying in general that GDPR has not been thought through enough and has been pushed without consideration for a lot of edge cases.
  - wsy 9y ago
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The first amendment also contains not much consideration for edge cases. That is a feature, not a bug. GDPR sets principles, it isn't a technical specification. The edge cases will be sorted out by courts, as usual for legal issues. Meanwhile, everything looks like that the EU will not immediately start to impose big fines if there are small gaps, as long as affected institutions and enterprises show effort to comply and to fix remaining issues.

Are you saying GDPR was ready then? How come if today it is not clear and has ambiguous interpretations or lack of?

icebraining 9y ago

All complex laws have ambiguous interpretations.

merinowool 9y ago
All bad laws. edit: I am not saying the idea behind GDPR is bad - it is amazing. But execution is really bad.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I disagree; all complex laws. That's the main reason for the existence of supreme courts; to decide on a reading when courts below disagree ("circuit split", in the US).
  - merinowool 9y ago
    Right. It shouldn't be okay to push bad (in the sense: incomplete, not researched enough etc.) laws because there is supreme court.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      My claim is that you can't avoid it. It's like trying to write a large program with zero bugs without being able to test it. Citing Knuth, "beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." To put it another way: can you cite any complex bill that hasn't ever gone to the Supreme Court?

wsy 9y ago

It was clear enough to know at least 2 years ago that you can't just make personal data public on the Web. Here, as in all cases, the supposed vagueness is just a lame excuse to not even start an honest effort of protecting personal data. ICANN obviously tried to play a game here (let's sit this out and see what happens), and now is under water.

merinowool 9y ago
I am not saying that this is an excuse to not protect the data. I am saying in general that GDPR has not been thought through enough and has been pushed without consideration for a lot of edge cases.
- wsy 9y ago
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The first amendment also contains not much consideration for edge cases. That is a feature, not a bug. GDPR sets principles, it isn't a technical specification. The edge cases will be sorted out by courts, as usual for legal issues. Meanwhile, everything looks like that the EU will not immediately start to impose big fines if there are small gaps, as long as affected institutions and enterprises show effort to comply and to fix remaining issues.