2 ms·
> "Your argument is that there is no case law so you get to claim whatever imaginary consequence you want." No, that's not my argument at-all. That's just your
by xtrapolate 8y ago
> "Your argument is that there is no case law so you get to claim whatever imaginary consequence you want."
No, that's not my argument at-all. That's just your personal interpretation of my words.
> "You’re also claiming people are rightfully concerned."
I'm not "also claiming". That was the sole claim from the very start.
> "Where is that right coming from? From past experience? Or is they just baseless concerns?"
It's literally in the comment:
(1) Some elements of the GDPR are up for interpretation.
(2) There's currently no case law surrounding GDPR.
If you take both of these facts into account - it is perfectly plausible for people to be concerned, as there's no telling how things will play out in a court of law.