4 ms·

I suspect it's going to be a bit like IR35 in the UK. Menacing on first glance, but so broad in it's definition that any court is going to struggle to draw the

I suspect it's going to be a bit like IR35 in the UK. Menacing on first glance, but so broad in it's definition that any court is going to struggle to draw the hard conclusions for anything that isn't what the law was explicitly created to prevent.

rocqua 8y ago
Having to rely so much on the discretion of the courts is not a good thing. Generally, it is better if all people who agree on what happened agree about the legality of that. When instead it is up for interpretation, that comes with issues. The first is selective enforcement, there is also the chilling effect on both sides. Those who ought to be protected worry about the slack given to their potential predators. Meanwhile those who are 'potential predators' need to worry about the slightest move that is illegal under some interpretation. The end result of this chilling effect is fewer willing customers, fever willing companies, and less mutual trust. Notably, this lack of trust persists even if you presume everyone still follows the law. At that point it seems to me a law has failed.
- tomelders 8y ago
  I don’t agree. All laws are up for interpretation. That’s why we have the judiciary. Law makers draft laws, courts decide where those laws fit into the wider body of law. The kind of law making you’re implicitly advocating is tantamount to despotism. Drafting a law that outlaws islam might well be clear in it’s wording, but it needs to be tested against the law that allows freedom of religion, freedom from persecution, and a ton of other laws no doubt. The claritiy of language with which a ban on islam is articulated is all for nought if it’s contradicted by, and incompatible with other laws. Although, GDPR has been explained very clearly. And we’ve been given a loooong time to digest, understand, implement, and question it. I don’t think any reasoable person can make a compelling case against GDPR. But unreasonable people can, and as we’re seeing, they will.

rocqua 8y ago

Having to rely so much on the discretion of the courts is not a good thing. Generally, it is better if all people who agree on what happened agree about the legality of that. When instead it is up for interpretation, that comes with issues. The first is selective enforcement, there is also the chilling effect on both sides. Those who ought to be protected worry about the slack given to their potential predators. Meanwhile those who are 'potential predators' need to worry about the slightest move that is illegal under some interpretation. The end result of this chilling effect is fewer willing customers, fever willing companies, and less mutual trust. Notably, this lack of trust persists even if you presume everyone still follows the law. At that point it seems to me a law has failed.

tomelders 8y ago
I don’t agree. All laws are up for interpretation. That’s why we have the judiciary. Law makers draft laws, courts decide where those laws fit into the wider body of law. The kind of law making you’re implicitly advocating is tantamount to despotism. Drafting a law that outlaws islam might well be clear in it’s wording, but it needs to be tested against the law that allows freedom of religion, freedom from persecution, and a ton of other laws no doubt. The claritiy of language with which a ban on islam is articulated is all for nought if it’s contradicted by, and incompatible with other laws. Although, GDPR has been explained very clearly. And we’ve been given a loooong time to digest, understand, implement, and question it. I don’t think any reasoable person can make a compelling case against GDPR. But unreasonable people can, and as we’re seeing, they will.