5 ms·

Then why do you need millions of dollars to make it reasonable and transparent? Reasonable and transparent would be fine. That may be the spirit of GDPR, and

Then why do you need millions of dollars to make it reasonable and transparent? Reasonable and transparent would be fine. That may be the spirit of GDPR, and I'm sure it's been sold to the EU public like this. But the wording is anything but reasonable. You are talking about things you obviously haven't personally evaluated.

the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
> That may be the spirit of GDPR, but the wording is anything but reasonable. What specifically is not reasonable? GDPR is by european law texts one of the most readable ones.
- downandout 8y ago
  I'm not going to get into a long discussion about the fine points of the GDPR. I've engaged in several, and they go on for countless comments with self proclaimed HN GDPR experts saying how each thing is easily overcome, followed by a deluge of downvotes for every comment saying that they are (legitimately) wrong. But here's just one place to get you started: https://www.exchangewire.com/blog/2016/07/07/an-american-perspective-the-three-worst-things-about-the-eu-gdpr/ https://www.exchangewire.com/blog/2016/07/07/an-american-per...
  - gerdesj 8y ago
    I'm not going to get into a long discussion about the fine points of the GDPR Why not? HN is a pretty fair forum. I'm not familiar with exchangewire and that link is dated July 2016. We've all passed a lot of water since then.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    You get downvotes because you make many factually incorrect statements.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - downandout 8y ago
      Such as? Again, please show me where it says that a maximum fine for a first offense is prohibited by law.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        We've already pointed out the "proportionate" clauses of the law, as well as the decades of regulation where the maximum fine has never been imposed.
        downandout 8y ago
        Which makes zero difference, because the statute does not define "proportionate" and does not otherwise constrain the fines. Who is "we" btw? Are you teaming up with others to defend GDPR on HN?

the_mitsuhiko 8y ago

> That may be the spirit of GDPR, but the wording is anything but reasonable. What specifically is not reasonable? GDPR is by european law texts one of the most readable ones.

downandout 8y ago
I'm not going to get into a long discussion about the fine points of the GDPR. I've engaged in several, and they go on for countless comments with self proclaimed HN GDPR experts saying how each thing is easily overcome, followed by a deluge of downvotes for every comment saying that they are (legitimately) wrong. But here's just one place to get you started: https://www.exchangewire.com/blog/2016/07/07/an-american-perspective-the-three-worst-things-about-the-eu-gdpr/ https://www.exchangewire.com/blog/2016/07/07/an-american-per...
- gerdesj 8y ago
  I'm not going to get into a long discussion about the fine points of the GDPR Why not? HN is a pretty fair forum. I'm not familiar with exchangewire and that link is dated July 2016. We've all passed a lot of water since then.
- DanBC 8y ago
  You get downvotes because you make many factually incorrect statements.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - downandout 8y ago
    Such as? Again, please show me where it says that a maximum fine for a first offense is prohibited by law.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      We've already pointed out the "proportionate" clauses of the law, as well as the decades of regulation where the maximum fine has never been imposed.
      - downandout 8y ago
        Which makes zero difference, because the statute does not define "proportionate" and does not otherwise constrain the fines. Who is "we" btw? Are you teaming up with others to defend GDPR on HN?