3 ms·

So should we... not have laws? I don't understand this point, why is that any more true for the GDPR than any other law?

omginternets 8y ago
>why is that any more true for the GDPR than any other law? Because the GDPR is extraordinarily ambiguous.
- leesalminen 8y ago
  Indeed it is. We engaged our legal counsel (top 5 global firm in the tech space) to help us understand its impact on us. Even the firm’s “expert” on GDPR still had unanswered questions saying that many nuances will have to be fought out in the courts. That’s not an acceptable risk to my small business.
syshum 8y ago
Laws like GDPR are written in such away that make them open to "legal trolls" in the US we have several of these laws that are routinly used to extort settlements out of small business. These laws are generally viewed as good laws with good intentions but because of their poor wording are open to massive interpretation and thus abuse. Patent, Copyright and Disability Access laws in the US are to examples commonly Abused laws for this type of behavior The problem is the legal system in most nations are setup in away that gives the guilty and the wealthy an advantage over the innocent with limited resources Laws and Legal Systems should be 1. Very Specific and not open to interpenetration 2. Have options for "settlement" as this rewards the guilty, and harms the innocent 3. Have more public resources for people with limited resources. Law firms and Large corporations use Legal Expenses has a weapon in Civil Courts over smaller companies due to the high costs and generally no public resources for Civil access 4. All Civil Cases must have to show Actual Damages not Theoretical Damages that would be a start
- outsideoflife 8y ago
  > Laws like GDPR are written in such away that make them open to "legal trolls" Except with GDPR all you could do is report them to the member states governing body. So no trolling. > Very Specific and not open to interpenetration Except this makes them inflexible and leads to them having to be constantly redrafted. So no use to the world of the HN. > Have options for "settlement" as this rewards the guilty, and harms the innocent GDPR is between you and the regulator, they already do this work and the whole aim of the process is to stop you doing bad things. A fine is a late step in the process for organisations who wont listen. > Have more public resources for people with limited resources. Law firms and Large corporations use Legal Expenses has a weapon in Civil Courts over smaller companies due to the high costs and generally no public resources for Civil access Is off topic when it comes to GDPR, see my previous answers > All Civil Cases must have to show Actual Damages not Theoretical Damages Again off topic with GDPR, but in the UK that is how damages works already, isn't it?

omginternets 8y ago

>why is that any more true for the GDPR than any other law? Because the GDPR is extraordinarily ambiguous.

leesalminen 8y ago
Indeed it is. We engaged our legal counsel (top 5 global firm in the tech space) to help us understand its impact on us. Even the firm’s “expert” on GDPR still had unanswered questions saying that many nuances will have to be fought out in the courts. That’s not an acceptable risk to my small business.

syshum 8y ago

Laws like GDPR are written in such away that make them open to "legal trolls" in the US we have several of these laws that are routinly used to extort settlements out of small business. These laws are generally viewed as good laws with good intentions but because of their poor wording are open to massive interpretation and thus abuse. Patent, Copyright and Disability Access laws in the US are to examples commonly Abused laws for this type of behavior The problem is the legal system in most nations are setup in away that gives the guilty and the wealthy an advantage over the innocent with limited resources Laws and Legal Systems should be 1. Very Specific and not open to interpenetration 2. Have options for "settlement" as this rewards the guilty, and harms the innocent 3. Have more public resources for people with limited resources. Law firms and Large corporations use Legal Expenses has a weapon in Civil Courts over smaller companies due to the high costs and generally no public resources for Civil access 4. All Civil Cases must have to show Actual Damages not Theoretical Damages that would be a start

outsideoflife 8y ago
> Laws like GDPR are written in such away that make them open to "legal trolls" Except with GDPR all you could do is report them to the member states governing body. So no trolling. > Very Specific and not open to interpenetration Except this makes them inflexible and leads to them having to be constantly redrafted. So no use to the world of the HN. > Have options for "settlement" as this rewards the guilty, and harms the innocent GDPR is between you and the regulator, they already do this work and the whole aim of the process is to stop you doing bad things. A fine is a late step in the process for organisations who wont listen. > Have more public resources for people with limited resources. Law firms and Large corporations use Legal Expenses has a weapon in Civil Courts over smaller companies due to the high costs and generally no public resources for Civil access Is off topic when it comes to GDPR, see my previous answers > All Civil Cases must have to show Actual Damages not Theoretical Damages Again off topic with GDPR, but in the UK that is how damages works already, isn't it?