3 ms·

The burden is not about the technical processes of data protection. That is the least of my concern. The burden comes in the form of administration, continuous

The burden is not about the technical processes of data protection. That is the least of my concern. The burden comes in the form of administration, continuous compliance (it is much more than what you listed!), managing takedown requests (especially when it's hard to verify a user's identity), and yes, getting sued, or having a lawsuit threatened. These are all real burdens that have nothing to do with the technical application of data security. So far the only response to real lawsuit concerns I've heard from GDPR defenders is "oh we don't sue people in the EU" -- WHAT? "Your honour, I was under the impression I wouldn't be sued, which is why I didn't make specific considerations for subsection 16 of article 6." sounds like a pretty shit defence to me.

tripletao 9y ago
The defenders of the GDPR mostly have great faith in their government to enforce vague regulations in a reasonable manner. They're probably right, but: (a) That weakens the rule of law. It transfers power from the elected officials who draft and vote on laws to the agencies that enforce them. Most Americans think that's bad, and I agree. (Like, now that Trump is the American president, are you happy or sad that he finds his power limited by the judiciary? How sure are you that your own governments' regulators will always be staffed by people whose judgment you trust?) (b) The extraterritoriality is weird. Let's say Turkey passed a law banning criticism of Erdogan on any website accessible to people in Turkey, and tried to enforce a judgment against an EU national running such a website in the EU. I hope we'd then all agree that's not how international law works. What's the difference between that and the GDPR? Is it just that you think data privacy is good, and banning criticism of Erdogan is bad? I agree, but what's the legal framework here? What countries do you think have the right to impose a similar burden on the EU?

tripletao 9y ago

The defenders of the GDPR mostly have great faith in their government to enforce vague regulations in a reasonable manner. They're probably right, but: (a) That weakens the rule of law. It transfers power from the elected officials who draft and vote on laws to the agencies that enforce them. Most Americans think that's bad, and I agree. (Like, now that Trump is the American president, are you happy or sad that he finds his power limited by the judiciary? How sure are you that your own governments' regulators will always be staffed by people whose judgment you trust?) (b) The extraterritoriality is weird. Let's say Turkey passed a law banning criticism of Erdogan on any website accessible to people in Turkey, and tried to enforce a judgment against an EU national running such a website in the EU. I hope we'd then all agree that's not how international law works. What's the difference between that and the GDPR? Is it just that you think data privacy is good, and banning criticism of Erdogan is bad? I agree, but what's the legal framework here? What countries do you think have the right to impose a similar burden on the EU?