5 ms·
This is not "unintended consequences", it is explicitly anticipated by the law. Which is why people can and are suing. We'll see how it shakes out in the courts
by Certhas 8y ago
This is not "unintended consequences", it is explicitly anticipated by the law. Which is why people can and are suing. We'll see how it shakes out in the courts.
- tomrod 8y agoThe law explicitly said "within hours of taking effect, these specific companies are to be sued due to not preparing sufficiently for GDPR"?
- tzahola 8y ago“Within hours” You mean “within the 2 years probation period + a few hours”
- peteretep 8y agoGDPR has been law for two years, since 25 May 2016, a point your downvoters seem to be missing.
- NullPrefix 8y agoYeah, that may be true, but it doesn't matter. Nobody was talking about it back then. /s
- tzahola 8y agoLet them downvote. I’d be downvoting left and right too, if those pesky EU bureaucrats had ruined my moneymaking scamvertising scheme.
- salvar 8y agoWhat a refreshingly honest question.
- tomrod 8y agoI know it seems like a stupid question, but I wanted to make sure I understood the parent commenter's point.
- pjc50 8y agoThe law is explicitly aimed at direct marketing. It's mentioned in the text: (article 21) "Where personal data are processed for direct marketing purposes, the data subject shall have the right to object at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her for such marketing, which includes profiling to the extent that it is related to such direct marketing. 3. Where the data subject objects to processing for direct marketing purposes, the personal data shall no longer be processed for such purposes." (also I think "In the context of the use of information society services, and notwithstanding Directive 2002/58/EC, the data subject may exercise his or her right to object by automated means using technical specifications." means that suddenly people are required to respect Do Not Track, which will be .. entertaining) All laws enable action to be taken against people who are not following them at the time they come into effect. That's what "coming into effect" means.
- tomrod 8y agoFair. I appreciate the input.
- craigsmansion 8y agoPeople are not "suing," they're filing complaints. It's a small but important difference, since a lot of the uncertainty and doubt around the GDPR seems to revolve around being sued out of existence in courts of law, which is not a thing: you can't get sued randomly by disgruntled users.
- Certhas 8y agoYou are absolutely right, sorry for the imprecise/misleading language.
- henrikschroder 8y agoThey're not being sued, and it's not a case for the courts. They're being reported to the Data Protection Agencies in various EU countries.
- akie 8y agoYes, but that's the first step to being sued.
- henrikschroder 8y agoNo, if a company gets reported, the DPA is supposed to investigate, and help the company get compliant if it finds that it isn't. If the company is willfully refusing to become compliant, the DPA can slap the company with a proportional fine to make non-compliance more expensive than complying. And if the company is fined, the company can probably sue the DPA in question if they think the fine was unreasonable or unapplicable or no good very bad and unfair.
- frockington 8y agoDoes the DPA also get to choose who is making a strong effort and who isn't. Reporters can probably start pre-typing the corruption scandal articles.