5 ms·

>riddled with vague terms like "reasonable", "legitimate", "proportionate" and "balanced" You could be describing a very large proportion of laws. To pick a r

>riddled with vague terms like "reasonable", "legitimate", "proportionate" and "balanced" You could be describing a very large proportion of laws. To pick a random example, I'll go with the Road Traffic Act 1991 (England and Wales). It is an offence under this act to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a public road. The definition of dangerous driving is: a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. That's it. Are you driving like an absolute dick? Is it obvious that you're driving like an absolute dick? If so, you're committing an offence. We have lots of other, more specific motoring laws, but you can be convicted and sentenced based on those two subjective factors. We have lots of case law and guidelines, but the matter of whether your driving definitively is or isn't dangerous can only be decided in court. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/part/I/crossheading/driving-offences https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/part/I/crosshea... The broad nature of GDPR is a feature, not a bug. Nothing about the way it is worded is particularly new or unusual. Large sections are cribbed from the Data Protection Directive, which came into force in 1995. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31995L0046 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

Silhouette 8y ago
I respectfully disagree with your example. We have very specific standards required for competent and safe driving, and in addition to the laws, there is well-established official practical guidance available in the form of the Highway Code. We have a regime of qualified instructors and examiners to guide and assess newcomers, and everyone has to pass a test to demonstrate their competence and understanding before being allowed out on the road independently. And then we're talking about criminal law, which means the burden of proof is heavily on the prosecution, you're going to be in court, and for more serious cases there is going to be a jury involved. And even then you have to fall far below the expected standard in a way that is obvious to someone who doesn't. None of those things applies in the context of GDPR.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Silhouette 8y ago

I respectfully disagree with your example. We have very specific standards required for competent and safe driving, and in addition to the laws, there is well-established official practical guidance available in the form of the Highway Code. We have a regime of qualified instructors and examiners to guide and assess newcomers, and everyone has to pass a test to demonstrate their competence and understanding before being allowed out on the road independently. And then we're talking about criminal law, which means the burden of proof is heavily on the prosecution, you're going to be in court, and for more serious cases there is going to be a jury involved. And even then you have to fall far below the expected standard in a way that is obvious to someone who doesn't. None of those things applies in the context of GDPR.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]