3 ms·

I don't understand this article. It's entire argument is there was already a law in the UK preventing unsolicited emails, but nobody was following it. Now that

• CiaranMcNulty 8y ago
  It's also that they had insufficient recording of how consent was given (which GDPR was stricter on). So lots of firms, including some I've worked with, have huge mailing lists with addresses from multiple sources and are _pretty sure_ they got consent in all of those cases, but have no way of showing that if asked.
  • TeMPOraL 8y ago
    They are _pretty sure_ they got consent, i.e. they know they didn't, and half of those lists are probably from shady sources. GDPR without requirements for audit trail would be useless.
• fwdpropaganda 8y ago
  I think it's the wording. You say "Seems it's exactly the GDPR to blame", but you could've said "the GDPR is to credit" and it would be equally true. The thing is that those two have different conotations. The first suggests that GDPR is bad (for motivating companies to follow UK law, which is bad), the second suggests that GDPR is good (for motivating companies to follow UK law, which is good). Personally I would prefer more neutral language. Something like "As a consequence of GDPR, companies have started changing their behavior from X to Y." If you want to give the readers context you could optionally add "Y is already law in the UK, but UK prosecutors have for the most part chosen not to enforce it."
• DanBC 8y ago
  The title is saying "companies think they need to do a bunch of stuff because GDPR, but really they already needed to be doing that stuff under existing law".