4 ms·

Your co-founder's problem is that he thinks the GDPR is a law, in the sense of "a document a judge can use to objectively determine whether an action is or isn'

Your co-founder's problem is that he thinks the GDPR is a law, in the sense of "a document a judge can use to objectively determine whether an action is or isn't lawful". The GDPR is a statement of general principles, with the implication that if you behave more or less in that spirit then the regulators won't go after you. If you are accustomed to the rule of law, then you won't like the GDPR. But you don't need the rule of law. Myanmar locked some Reuters reporters up with no convincing legal basis; and yet I can visit the country with no special fear that I'll get locked up, because I know more or less what their government likes and dislikes, and I know that I'll stay well away from the line. You can do that too. The EU obviously won't come after you for the email deletion issue, just as Myanmar obviously won't lock up a visiting businessman who sticks to business--there are too many easier targets. Your lawyers can't help you, because this isn't law. They'll just say "it depends", because that's all the text of the law allows them to say. (Although, I do enjoy watching people who seem to be general proponents of the GDPR confidently take contradictory positions here.) I seem to be the only one who think this degradation of the rule of law--from the EU, a region that basically invented the concept--is bad; but even I agree that it's no major obstacle to doing business.

gist 8y ago
This is exactly true. I think part of the issue is that many people worried about this don't have a history and seat of the pants feel for how things like this roll out. The 'tech brain' deals in preciseness but business (and life) is about nuance and typically more practical in terms of what happens, when and to whom.
skybrian 8y ago
I think you've nearly defined "law" out of existence? Law doesn't work like math or computer code. It's always subject to interpretation and lawyers will generally give you advice about what to expect based on experience, not guarantees. There are some areas more settled than others, but this is a continuum, not a crisp boundary.
- tripletao 8y ago
  I certainly agree that it's a continuum, and that an attempt to remove all judicial discretion will yield an impossibly long law still full of loopholes. (As an aside, I think this is why cryptographic smart contracts are grossly oversold.) The GDPR just seems unusually close to the lawless edge of that continuum by the standards of a Western legal system, considering the vagueness of the rules and the severity of the statutory punishments--20M EUR for a small company is a corporate death penalty. But again, you don't need law to do business. I can visit countries where people face the literal human death penalty with negligible due process, and still feel quite confident that I'll be fine. By the standards of worldwide lawlessness, the GDPR is great; but that's a pretty pathetic standard.
- repolfx 8y ago
  That's true but a part of the general political tension between parties is, at least in theory, to what extent law is interpreted by judges vs written by politicians. The theory is that laws should be written by politicians and merely applied to specific cases by judges, because politicians are accountable and judges are not. When you have laws that state virtually nothing and rely entirely on interpretation, that's the same thing as moving power away from elected political bodies and into unaccountable elites. This is, not coincidentally, exactly what the entire EU project seems to be constantly engaged in, so it's perhaps no surprise that the EU particularly enjoys passing vague laws that move power away from national politicians and towards the Commission and ECJ (the ECJ judges are appointed by the same process that decides the makeup of the Commission).
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That's true but a part of the general political tension between parties is, at least in theory, to what extent law is interpreted by judges vs written by politicians. In the US, at least, that's true in the rhetoric of one of the parties, but the opposing party doesn't argue the opposite side, just argues that the side that claims it is an issue is hypocritical in its rhetorical stance.

gist 8y ago

This is exactly true. I think part of the issue is that many people worried about this don't have a history and seat of the pants feel for how things like this roll out. The 'tech brain' deals in preciseness but business (and life) is about nuance and typically more practical in terms of what happens, when and to whom.

skybrian 8y ago

I think you've nearly defined "law" out of existence? Law doesn't work like math or computer code. It's always subject to interpretation and lawyers will generally give you advice about what to expect based on experience, not guarantees. There are some areas more settled than others, but this is a continuum, not a crisp boundary.

tripletao 8y ago
I certainly agree that it's a continuum, and that an attempt to remove all judicial discretion will yield an impossibly long law still full of loopholes. (As an aside, I think this is why cryptographic smart contracts are grossly oversold.) The GDPR just seems unusually close to the lawless edge of that continuum by the standards of a Western legal system, considering the vagueness of the rules and the severity of the statutory punishments--20M EUR for a small company is a corporate death penalty. But again, you don't need law to do business. I can visit countries where people face the literal human death penalty with negligible due process, and still feel quite confident that I'll be fine. By the standards of worldwide lawlessness, the GDPR is great; but that's a pretty pathetic standard.
repolfx 8y ago
That's true but a part of the general political tension between parties is, at least in theory, to what extent law is interpreted by judges vs written by politicians. The theory is that laws should be written by politicians and merely applied to specific cases by judges, because politicians are accountable and judges are not. When you have laws that state virtually nothing and rely entirely on interpretation, that's the same thing as moving power away from elected political bodies and into unaccountable elites. This is, not coincidentally, exactly what the entire EU project seems to be constantly engaged in, so it's perhaps no surprise that the EU particularly enjoys passing vague laws that move power away from national politicians and towards the Commission and ECJ (the ECJ judges are appointed by the same process that decides the makeup of the Commission).
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > That's true but a part of the general political tension between parties is, at least in theory, to what extent law is interpreted by judges vs written by politicians. In the US, at least, that's true in the rhetoric of one of the parties, but the opposing party doesn't argue the opposite side, just argues that the side that claims it is an issue is hypocritical in its rhetorical stance.