6 ms·

Your point is clear, but this is internet software all having to comply with the same regulations regardless of actual industry. I'm having to close my small co

Your point is clear, but this is internet software all having to comply with the same regulations regardless of actual industry. I'm having to close my small construction company because the FDA passed harsher food safety requirements.

jacquesm 8y ago
No, you don't have to close at all. You just need to comply with the law, just like everybody else. You also need to file your taxes, keep the books in order, ensure that you do not pollute the environment, in some cases you need to be licensed in order to be able to practice your trade and so on. Why would this particular regulation suddenly cause you to close your business unless you were doing something really shady?
- tathougies 8y ago
  Perhaps it costs money to do so, and the company does not have enough working capital + lines of credit to make the payments necessary? I feel like your statement here is basically "you are a business, therefore it is impossible for you to run out of money", which -- superficially -- seems very naive.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    At that level it doesn't have to cost anything other than your time. And if it's not a business it is a hobby and those cost time (and usually also money). The GDPR is not going to cause any but the weakest businesses to close shop, in fact if the GDPR causes a business to close (which I highly doubt other than people voluntarily throwing in the towel because they can't be bothered) then I am not sure if I'm going to shed tears over that because it likely means that that business was so weak already that other things besides GDPR compliance were suffering as well (such as security).
    - tathougies 8y ago
      The comment I responded to cited environmental regulation. These are oftentimes costly to implement. All regulation costs money to implement. Even if each regulation by itself is cheap, these things add up -- it's death by a thousand cuts.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        > These are oftentimes costly to implement. Yes, but then again: if you don't implement them society as a whole will end up holding the bag. Polluter pays is a very good principle. > All regulation costs money to implement. Yes. But that's called the cost of doing business. And most software based businesses have insane margins anyway because of their ability to scale. > Even if each regulation by itself is cheap, these things add up -- it's death by a thousand cuts. That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it levels the playing field between those that ride roughshot over their users rights and those that try to be nice.
        tathougies 8y ago
        I'm not sure what it is you are arguing about. I am in 100% agreement that regulation is necessary for a functioning society. However, the natural result of introducing new regulation is that some businesses will choose to leave the market. This is the cost of doing business. If a society can bear the loss of the business from the market, then things are good. That's about all there is to it. > Another way of looking at it is that it levels the playing field between those that ride roughshot over their users rights and those that try to be nice. Neither of those viewpoints are in opposition. You can both believe that more regulation kills some businesses through a 'death by a thousand cuts' and that these regulations level the playing field.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        I'm sure such businesses exist. But this isn't one of them, the article writer is leaving his EU users for reasons all his own, as in: he made them up.
  - bkor 8y ago
    Obviously it might cost money (or time, which might mean money). Argument is still the same, it's not out of the ordinary to comply with regulations and laws. It seems more like a cultural difference, whereby some one-man shops from US find privacy not important.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      No there's no cultural difference (or perhaps there is, but it's not on display here). It's not out of the ordinary to comply with regulations and laws -- businesses often change to do so. However, it's also not out of the ordinary for businesses to go out of business due to legal situations. Both are signs of a functioning regulatory environment.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
danbruc 8y ago
If you abstract away the industry specific details of my examples, you are not supposed to physically endanger, harm or kill people regardless of the actual industry. So I would say it is exactly the same but instead of physical harm we are talking about harming peoples' privacy. Maybe one could argue that there is something to be gained by differentiating the rules based on the industry but, at least to me, it is not obvious that the result would be better and not just more complex. Also there are already rules and laws for specific industries and how they have to handle personal information, think for example medical or financial data.
davidgould 8y ago
> I'm having to close my small construction company because the FDA passed harsher food safety requirements. Is your creative reuse scheme for sawdust and broken drywall bits no longer allowed?

jacquesm 8y ago

No, you don't have to close at all. You just need to comply with the law, just like everybody else. You also need to file your taxes, keep the books in order, ensure that you do not pollute the environment, in some cases you need to be licensed in order to be able to practice your trade and so on. Why would this particular regulation suddenly cause you to close your business unless you were doing something really shady?

tathougies 8y ago
Perhaps it costs money to do so, and the company does not have enough working capital + lines of credit to make the payments necessary? I feel like your statement here is basically "you are a business, therefore it is impossible for you to run out of money", which -- superficially -- seems very naive.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  At that level it doesn't have to cost anything other than your time. And if it's not a business it is a hobby and those cost time (and usually also money). The GDPR is not going to cause any but the weakest businesses to close shop, in fact if the GDPR causes a business to close (which I highly doubt other than people voluntarily throwing in the towel because they can't be bothered) then I am not sure if I'm going to shed tears over that because it likely means that that business was so weak already that other things besides GDPR compliance were suffering as well (such as security).
  - tathougies 8y ago
    The comment I responded to cited environmental regulation. These are oftentimes costly to implement. All regulation costs money to implement. Even if each regulation by itself is cheap, these things add up -- it's death by a thousand cuts.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      > These are oftentimes costly to implement. Yes, but then again: if you don't implement them society as a whole will end up holding the bag. Polluter pays is a very good principle. > All regulation costs money to implement. Yes. But that's called the cost of doing business. And most software based businesses have insane margins anyway because of their ability to scale. > Even if each regulation by itself is cheap, these things add up -- it's death by a thousand cuts. That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it levels the playing field between those that ride roughshot over their users rights and those that try to be nice.
      - tathougies 8y ago
        I'm not sure what it is you are arguing about. I am in 100% agreement that regulation is necessary for a functioning society. However, the natural result of introducing new regulation is that some businesses will choose to leave the market. This is the cost of doing business. If a society can bear the loss of the business from the market, then things are good. That's about all there is to it. > Another way of looking at it is that it levels the playing field between those that ride roughshot over their users rights and those that try to be nice. Neither of those viewpoints are in opposition. You can both believe that more regulation kills some businesses through a 'death by a thousand cuts' and that these regulations level the playing field.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        I'm sure such businesses exist. But this isn't one of them, the article writer is leaving his EU users for reasons all his own, as in: he made them up.
- bkor 8y ago
  Obviously it might cost money (or time, which might mean money). Argument is still the same, it's not out of the ordinary to comply with regulations and laws. It seems more like a cultural difference, whereby some one-man shops from US find privacy not important.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    No there's no cultural difference (or perhaps there is, but it's not on display here). It's not out of the ordinary to comply with regulations and laws -- businesses often change to do so. However, it's also not out of the ordinary for businesses to go out of business due to legal situations. Both are signs of a functioning regulatory environment.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

danbruc 8y ago

If you abstract away the industry specific details of my examples, you are not supposed to physically endanger, harm or kill people regardless of the actual industry. So I would say it is exactly the same but instead of physical harm we are talking about harming peoples' privacy. Maybe one could argue that there is something to be gained by differentiating the rules based on the industry but, at least to me, it is not obvious that the result would be better and not just more complex. Also there are already rules and laws for specific industries and how they have to handle personal information, think for example medical or financial data.

davidgould 8y ago

> I'm having to close my small construction company because the FDA passed harsher food safety requirements. Is your creative reuse scheme for sawdust and broken drywall bits no longer allowed?