4 ms·

I was hoping for a nice respite to the anti-GDPR stuff we've seen recently, but this is just naked propaganda. In particular, the sentence: "the GDPR has the p

I was hoping for a nice respite to the anti-GDPR stuff we've seen recently, but this is just naked propaganda. In particular, the sentence: "the GDPR has the potential to escalate to those levels but in the spirit of the good natured enforcers ..." The author seems to have the idea that bureaucratic EU systems are inherently "good" and that even if things look bad on paper, it will be fine because they are "good" people. This is not how the legal system or legal compliance works.

SomeGermanGuy 8y ago
On what experiences with EU bureaucracy do you base your statement?
- AnabeeKnox 8y ago
  On what experiences with EU bureaucracy do you base your question?
  - vidarh 8y ago
    I don't know about them, but I agree with questioning your original comment, based on 17 years of dealing with data protection issues in the UK and other EU countries.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  so you're just around baiting with the same copy pasted comment?
  - AnabeeKnox 8y ago
    It's a strategy an EU bureaucrat would be proud of!
orwin 8y ago
Do you have any experience with a Eu country internet regulatory service? I have experience with the CNIL (The french one), and they were helpfull and yes, good-natured. Part of our demand to be able to host data from hospital was drafted with their help, when they had no legal obligation to help us. A friend who work in a legal/tech startup also had good experience with them, and i don't know anybody who ever had a bad run with them. So if you have contradictory experience, please share them. Until then, i'll still take all this "GDPR will kill tech companies" articles from people who only experienced the US legal system as jokes.
- AnabeeKnox 8y ago
  You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I was saying that from a legal complience perspective, the notion that the regulatary body is "good-natured" is meaningless. You have to comply with ever letter of the GDPR, you can't just do most of it, or interpret it loosely, and say "oh but they are good-natured people they will understand.". Legal complience doesn't work like that AT ALL!
  - Angostura 8y ago
    > I was saying that from a legal complience perspective, the notion that the regulatary body is "good-natured" is meaningless. It's not, because as the article explains, experience with the existing regime shows that, the good natured regulator will send you a helpful and explanatory warning letter that tells you what you need to do to become compliant before jumping into fines. An un-good-natured regulator would behave rather differently.
  - aninhumer 8y ago
    What people mean when they say the agency is "good-natured" is not that they're going to ignore non-compliance, but that the way they enforce it is not being completely hostile and pulling out a massive lawsuit the second they see any issues. Their goal is not to destroy companies, it's to make them compliant, and it's much easier for them to do that with communication than expensive legal action.
  - gorm 8y ago
    They will understand and give you a warning before doing anything and let you change your malpractice before any reaction. That's how it works.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    No, but legal compliance in most of the EU doesn't work by slapping huge fines on people either - first you are told there is a problem and you'll be given a chance and maybe assistance to become compliant.
  - salvar 8y ago
vidarh 8y ago
I think this is a very distinct difference between the EU with the scaremongering removed, and e.g. the US: My experience of the EU has been that they've consistently looked out for my interests. Even in the face of the local government (I live in the UK) that have kept fighting for positions I find abhorrent (e.g. UK governments keep complaining about having to abide by EU human rights regulations for example). Yes, we shouldn't aim to give governments power to push things to an extreme, but on the other hand we should also ensure that they have the ability to actually react to serious abuses. In particularly in the area of data protection, I don't know of a single example where the rules have been pushed to the extreme. If anything, as a private citizen I'm disappointed there's not been stricter enforcement. As someone who has had to deal with it on the corporate side as well, it's not been hard to comply with. Enforcement here is generally always strongly predicated on not jumping straight to the strictest possible outcome, but in carefully considering how serious a transgression is. It's not that EU systems are inherently good, but that history and practice have shown that when they give flexibility, it takes serious abuses and ill intent to end up with the strictest reactions allowed, and there'd also be little reason to assume that anyone rushing to the strictest interpretations possible wouldn't get shut down hard by the courts.
- AnabeeKnox 8y ago
  You are transposing your like of certain EU institutions (human rights regulations) and grafting them onto this legislation. This isn't how it works, not least because there has been no case-law yet, so we have no idea how it will be interpreted. Therefore a legal compliance unit has no choice but to follow GDPR the letter, which is hugely difficult and bureaucratic. The notion that they are "good-natured" is meaningless in a legal sense. It seems many commentators here are confusing criticism of the GDPR with criticism of the EU itself. Surely people are sophisticated enough to understand that they are 2 hugely different things, and that a robust criticism of regulations and laws are part of a healthy democratic society.
  - bkor 8y ago
    As mentioned elsewhere, these regulators have been operating for a very long time. Even when dealing with the whole Facebook / Cambridge Analytica they're moving quite slowly. There have been various legal changes regarding privacy in the past. E.g. for The Netherlands it is not allowed to have a checkbox on by default to sign up to a mailing list. There's a fine if you don't abide and this fine can be very hefty. In case of problems the regulator first reaches out, a fine is the very last resort. There has been ample history on how these regulators have been working over the past 20-40 years.
iamnothere 8y ago
Indeed, just look at the tragedy that is the EPO. My chief concern is that this will end up being an instrument wielded by big business (through political connections) at the expense of smaller companies, especially smaller overseas competitors but also domestically. If EU-US relations continue to sour, it could also become a weapon in a hypothetical trade war, which I guess is probably one of the "benefits" from an EU government perspective. Codifying privacy protection is important, but GDPR favors big companies and governments too strongly over already risk-burdened entrepreneurs.
oblio 8y ago
Are you American or European? US law (common law) works very differently from European law (civil law).

SomeGermanGuy 8y ago

On what experiences with EU bureaucracy do you base your statement?

AnabeeKnox 8y ago
On what experiences with EU bureaucracy do you base your question?
- vidarh 8y ago
  I don't know about them, but I agree with questioning your original comment, based on 17 years of dealing with data protection issues in the UK and other EU countries.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
so you're just around baiting with the same copy pasted comment?
- AnabeeKnox 8y ago
  It's a strategy an EU bureaucrat would be proud of!

orwin 8y ago

Do you have any experience with a Eu country internet regulatory service? I have experience with the CNIL (The french one), and they were helpfull and yes, good-natured. Part of our demand to be able to host data from hospital was drafted with their help, when they had no legal obligation to help us. A friend who work in a legal/tech startup also had good experience with them, and i don't know anybody who ever had a bad run with them. So if you have contradictory experience, please share them. Until then, i'll still take all this "GDPR will kill tech companies" articles from people who only experienced the US legal system as jokes.

AnabeeKnox 8y ago
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I was saying that from a legal complience perspective, the notion that the regulatary body is "good-natured" is meaningless. You have to comply with ever letter of the GDPR, you can't just do most of it, or interpret it loosely, and say "oh but they are good-natured people they will understand.". Legal complience doesn't work like that AT ALL!
- Angostura 8y ago
  > I was saying that from a legal complience perspective, the notion that the regulatary body is "good-natured" is meaningless. It's not, because as the article explains, experience with the existing regime shows that, the good natured regulator will send you a helpful and explanatory warning letter that tells you what you need to do to become compliant before jumping into fines. An un-good-natured regulator would behave rather differently.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  What people mean when they say the agency is "good-natured" is not that they're going to ignore non-compliance, but that the way they enforce it is not being completely hostile and pulling out a massive lawsuit the second they see any issues. Their goal is not to destroy companies, it's to make them compliant, and it's much easier for them to do that with communication than expensive legal action.
- gorm 8y ago
  They will understand and give you a warning before doing anything and let you change your malpractice before any reaction. That's how it works.
- Nursie 8y ago
  No, but legal compliance in most of the EU doesn't work by slapping huge fines on people either - first you are told there is a problem and you'll be given a chance and maybe assistance to become compliant.
- salvar 8y ago

vidarh 8y ago

I think this is a very distinct difference between the EU with the scaremongering removed, and e.g. the US: My experience of the EU has been that they've consistently looked out for my interests. Even in the face of the local government (I live in the UK) that have kept fighting for positions I find abhorrent (e.g. UK governments keep complaining about having to abide by EU human rights regulations for example). Yes, we shouldn't aim to give governments power to push things to an extreme, but on the other hand we should also ensure that they have the ability to actually react to serious abuses. In particularly in the area of data protection, I don't know of a single example where the rules have been pushed to the extreme. If anything, as a private citizen I'm disappointed there's not been stricter enforcement. As someone who has had to deal with it on the corporate side as well, it's not been hard to comply with. Enforcement here is generally always strongly predicated on not jumping straight to the strictest possible outcome, but in carefully considering how serious a transgression is. It's not that EU systems are inherently good, but that history and practice have shown that when they give flexibility, it takes serious abuses and ill intent to end up with the strictest reactions allowed, and there'd also be little reason to assume that anyone rushing to the strictest interpretations possible wouldn't get shut down hard by the courts.

AnabeeKnox 8y ago
You are transposing your like of certain EU institutions (human rights regulations) and grafting them onto this legislation. This isn't how it works, not least because there has been no case-law yet, so we have no idea how it will be interpreted. Therefore a legal compliance unit has no choice but to follow GDPR the letter, which is hugely difficult and bureaucratic. The notion that they are "good-natured" is meaningless in a legal sense. It seems many commentators here are confusing criticism of the GDPR with criticism of the EU itself. Surely people are sophisticated enough to understand that they are 2 hugely different things, and that a robust criticism of regulations and laws are part of a healthy democratic society.
- bkor 8y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere, these regulators have been operating for a very long time. Even when dealing with the whole Facebook / Cambridge Analytica they're moving quite slowly. There have been various legal changes regarding privacy in the past. E.g. for The Netherlands it is not allowed to have a checkbox on by default to sign up to a mailing list. There's a fine if you don't abide and this fine can be very hefty. In case of problems the regulator first reaches out, a fine is the very last resort. There has been ample history on how these regulators have been working over the past 20-40 years.

iamnothere 8y ago

Indeed, just look at the tragedy that is the EPO. My chief concern is that this will end up being an instrument wielded by big business (through political connections) at the expense of smaller companies, especially smaller overseas competitors but also domestically. If EU-US relations continue to sour, it could also become a weapon in a hypothetical trade war, which I guess is probably one of the "benefits" from an EU government perspective. Codifying privacy protection is important, but GDPR favors big companies and governments too strongly over already risk-burdened entrepreneurs.

oblio 8y ago

Are you American or European? US law (common law) works very differently from European law (civil law).