7 ms·

The regulators have been running for two decades, and this is EXACTLY how they operate. Scepticism in this case is unreasonable, given the massive evidence base

The regulators have been running for two decades, and this is EXACTLY how they operate. Scepticism in this case is unreasonable, given the massive evidence base.

wott 8y ago
> The regulators have been running for two decades, Exactly 4 decades in France (it started in 1978).
repolfx 8y ago
But that's purely your own opinion. I do have some direct experience of working with EU data protection regulators. My experience has been that they vary wildly in "reasonableness". UK ICO is pretty OK, they want companies to succeed. France's CNIL is a joke. Petty, spiteful and utterly inconsistent. I watched as a company worked closely with them to get their sign-off on a change to their terms of service and privacy policy. CNIL were happy to be involved and taken so seriously, they were satisfied with the changes and even praised them in private. After the company announced the change, some journalists saw an opportunity to make some noise and did so. CNIL then immediately changed their mind and dished out a fine, despite having previously agreed to it. What a farce. That's at the national level. I can give many examples of cases where the EU has been anything but reasonable. The entire argument Jaques presents here boils down to his belief that everyone working in GDPR enforcement in the EU will not only be totally predictable and reasonable today but also going forward into the indefinite future. As pointed out in the other thread, this belief is itself unreasonable, because the nature of the GDPR means that even in the unlikely even it's true today, if in 10 years a new Commission arrives and changes their mind they can retroactively decide that things previously allowed were actually illegal. The GDPR says virtually nothing about anything so they'd certainly argue such a thing was merely a "clarification" and not a retroactive change to the law. There are plenty of examples of governments doing this sort of thing over time, including the EU, like with Apple's tax situation. Mr Mattheij appears to just write this possibility off entirely.
- patricius 8y ago
  Furthermore, it imposes unbelievable costs on companies that in the end must be passed on to consumers. This is completely unnecessary legislation that will probably have no measurable positive effect at all. Bureaucracy and politics at its best.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    Why is this unnecessary? We see daily announcements about personal data being leaked and misused. It’s plainly a problem.
- AnabeeKnox 8y ago
  "his belief that everyone working in GDPR enforcement in the EU will not only be totally predictable and reasonable today but also going forward into the indefinite future." EXACTLY! There seems to be an almost cultish devotion to the benevolent institution that it can do no wrong, neither now nor henceforth. I understand WHY people have this belief. The EU is under constant attack at the moment from many sides, and people feel they need to defend it at all costs, even it they are wrong.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    But people aren't defending Europe, they're defending the national data protection regulators (eg ICO) which are not European bodies.
  - bkor 8y ago
    > The EU is under constant attack at the moment from many sides, and people feel they need to defend it at all costs, even it they are wrong. As you mention that "they are wrong" in reference to saying that the regulators aren't to be trusted, could you explain how the Dutch regulator behaved badly? I'm Dutch and have followed what they've been doing over at least 10+ years. I don't think I'm wrong in my assertion, but feel free to point out the details. Also, I'd like to know how often you've followed what the Dutch regulator has been doing. I get the feeling you're not aware of their name.
  - 8y ago

The regulators have been running for two decades, and this is EXACTLY how they operate. Scepticism in this case is unreasonable, given the massive evidence base.

wott 8y ago

> The regulators have been running for two decades, Exactly 4 decades in France (it started in 1978).

repolfx 8y ago

But that's purely your own opinion. I do have some direct experience of working with EU data protection regulators. My experience has been that they vary wildly in "reasonableness". UK ICO is pretty OK, they want companies to succeed. France's CNIL is a joke. Petty, spiteful and utterly inconsistent. I watched as a company worked closely with them to get their sign-off on a change to their terms of service and privacy policy. CNIL were happy to be involved and taken so seriously, they were satisfied with the changes and even praised them in private. After the company announced the change, some journalists saw an opportunity to make some noise and did so. CNIL then immediately changed their mind and dished out a fine, despite having previously agreed to it. What a farce. That's at the national level. I can give many examples of cases where the EU has been anything but reasonable. The entire argument Jaques presents here boils down to his belief that everyone working in GDPR enforcement in the EU will not only be totally predictable and reasonable today but also going forward into the indefinite future. As pointed out in the other thread, this belief is itself unreasonable, because the nature of the GDPR means that even in the unlikely even it's true today, if in 10 years a new Commission arrives and changes their mind they can retroactively decide that things previously allowed were actually illegal. The GDPR says virtually nothing about anything so they'd certainly argue such a thing was merely a "clarification" and not a retroactive change to the law. There are plenty of examples of governments doing this sort of thing over time, including the EU, like with Apple's tax situation. Mr Mattheij appears to just write this possibility off entirely.

patricius 8y ago
Furthermore, it imposes unbelievable costs on companies that in the end must be passed on to consumers. This is completely unnecessary legislation that will probably have no measurable positive effect at all. Bureaucracy and politics at its best.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Why is this unnecessary? We see daily announcements about personal data being leaked and misused. It’s plainly a problem.
AnabeeKnox 8y ago
"his belief that everyone working in GDPR enforcement in the EU will not only be totally predictable and reasonable today but also going forward into the indefinite future." EXACTLY! There seems to be an almost cultish devotion to the benevolent institution that it can do no wrong, neither now nor henceforth. I understand WHY people have this belief. The EU is under constant attack at the moment from many sides, and people feel they need to defend it at all costs, even it they are wrong.
- DanBC 8y ago
  But people aren't defending Europe, they're defending the national data protection regulators (eg ICO) which are not European bodies.
- bkor 8y ago
  > The EU is under constant attack at the moment from many sides, and people feel they need to defend it at all costs, even it they are wrong. As you mention that "they are wrong" in reference to saying that the regulators aren't to be trusted, could you explain how the Dutch regulator behaved badly? I'm Dutch and have followed what they've been doing over at least 10+ years. I don't think I'm wrong in my assertion, but feel free to point out the details. Also, I'd like to know how often you've followed what the Dutch regulator has been doing. I get the feeling you're not aware of their name.
- 8y ago