12 ms·

Business don't comply with regulations because it is easy, but because it's needed to do business. If a service didn't had a big user base in Europe, most coun

by kartan 8y ago

Business don't comply with regulations because it is easy, but because it's needed to do business. If a service didn't had a big user base in Europe, most countries don't speak English, it may be cheaper to remove the service. The New York Times or The New Yorker that even have physical copies available in Europe work as usual. I work in a gambling company and this is our day to day business. To enter a new market means to follow a new set of regulations. To do the adaptation or not is an strategic decision based in complexity, expected revenue and other factors. GDPR is just another regulation to add to the long list related to tax evasion, responsible gambling, fair play, etc.

rdlecler1 8y ago
Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, and thereby increase monopoly and creating central hubs of systemic risk. There is no free lunch with one-size-fits-all rule making. Unfortunately regulators think there is.
- fixermark 8y ago
  And when it comes to European business law in particular, there's no reason to believe favoring incumbents and decreasing competition isn't an intended benefit. When Amazon entered the French market, it tripped over laws putting a floor on discounts allowed that are intended to protect book sellers, not purchasers.
- hau 8y ago
  Can you back up such strong and broad claims with something?
  - baxtr 8y ago
    Not every claim on HN needs a backup. This one makes total sense to me. In this case, the article itself shows that regulation is definitely decreasing alternatives, which in turn can lead to monopolies
    - tommorris 8y ago
      Glad you can tell how regulation affects a market after less than one day of being active law, and zero enforcement actions or cases suggesting how courts/regulators are going to interpret the rules.
      - lajhsdfkl 8y ago
        You do know that GDPR is not the first regulation that has ever been written correct? There is a huge body of economic literature already dedicated to the subject.
        freeflight 8y ago
        And you do know that not all regulations are the same? You are making it sound like some kind of universal consensus on the validity of regulations exists, but such a consensus does not exist because it's a way too complex, and wide, topic to be making blanket statements about.
    - denzil_correa 8y ago
      > This one makes total sense to me A lot of things “make sense” but aren’t true.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    It's hardly disputable that regulation creates barriers to entry. Nor it is disputable that barriers to entry limit competition. See everything from lemonade stands[1] to taxis[2] to banks[3]. What is disputable is whether in total a regulation has a net positive or negative effect. [1] http://www.newyorkcityfamily.com/2017/08/are-lemonade-stands-legal-in-new-york.html http://www.newyorkcityfamily.com/2017/08/are-lemonade-stands... [2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-business-model-breaking-traditional-barriers-entry-jack-welch https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-business-model-breaking-... [3] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031015/what-barriers-entry-exist-financial-services-sector.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031015/what-barrier...
    - vidarh 8y ago
      That it can, sure. It can also reduce barriers to entry. E.g. entering the ISP market anywhere in the EU is vastly simpler than it was, since the incumbents have faced legal requirements to lease last mile capacity at regulated prices (e.g. in the UK you can go to OpenReach's site and download the wholesale price lists), while they can also lay their own cables if then can afford it.
- tommorris 8y ago
  I was thinking about getting in to the car market but all these pesky requirements that I sell a car with airbags and seatbelts and fuel efficiency compliance are just there to protect existing incumbents.
  - rdlecler1 8y ago
    False equivalency.
  - gohbgl 8y ago
    Airbags and seat belts were installed in cars long before they were required by regulators. The same goes for improvements in fuel efficiency. This all is driven by competing companies trying to make a profit.
    - inscionent 8y ago
      Air bags were 'installed before they were required' because auto manufactures in the US were given a 7 year period to add them, not out of competition based on safety. This only after a decade of the auto industry fighting to keep those safety features from being required, exactly because the auto makers were worried about profits and not consumer safety. "A Federal agency today abandoned the longdisputed requirement that automobile manufacturers install automatic crash protection, such as airbags or ''passive'' safety belts. The action by the agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drew immediate protest from safety groups and praise from the automobile industry." https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/24/us/airbag-regulation-on-cars-rescinded.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/24/us/airbag-regulation-on-c...
    - astura 8y ago
      No... this is just pure revisionist history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
  - TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
    I think the phrase "You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything to the discussion" applies to your comment. No one here is saying that ALL regulations are bad or should be removed, just that all regulations have unintended consequences.
- staplers 8y ago
  Name any system that does not experience entropy.. all 'regulations' over time become corrupted/exploited. That's the nature of evolution and natural selection.
- coherentpony 8y ago
  That's your opinion, not a fact. Car manufacturers are required to put seatbelts in their cars because of regulation. In this case, it's not done to "decrease competition". It's not done to "increase monopoly". It's not done to "create central hubs of systemic risk". It's done to save lives. Regulations affect profits, yes. Regulations may have unintended consequences. Making regulations that protect people and still allow for a healthy free market is a hard thing to do. It's heavily context- and market-dependent. It is what it is and we have to live with it, but it's not as black-or-white as you make it sound.
- josteink 8y ago
  > Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition Except in Europe where it has done the exact opposite for telecom, especially compared to the unregulated US.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    > telecom > unregulated US On the contrary, telecoms are very much regulated in the US. There is an entire commission for regulating radio/television/cable communications: the FCC. I could hardly choose a more regulated industry than telecommunications.
    - krisdol 8y ago
      The US has a problem of private industry infiltrating and co-opting government, and people largely normalizing it. The landscape for telecoms is simultaneously over-regulated with respect to allowing room for new players to enter the market, and under-regulated with respect to consumer rights. US regulations favor monopolies, and monopolies abuse their influence on regulatory boards to shut out new competition. Regulation can mean different things to different people. It's just stupid, one-dimensional, shallow thought to try to paint all regulation with a broad good-vs-bad brush.
      - taysic 8y ago
        This is not an issue exclusive to the US. Simply look at all the back room sweetheart tax deals made in the EU with government officials.
- belorn 8y ago
  The biggest area of regulations are food safety, health care, mining and transportation. There is a large theme for why does exist and rather established history on how things were before it. And while all those has their share of monopolies, I do not see how the current data handlers on the web before GDPR is better. Google is massive. Facebook is massive. The number of online news papers that hold 90% of the market are few. Talking about how regulations is going to increase monopolies where its already monopolized seems strange.
- Angostura 8y ago
  > Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, Whio is more likely to be hurt by GDPR. Google, or DuckDuckGo?
- Paul-ish 8y ago
  > Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, and thereby increase monopoly and creating central hubs of systemic risk. Have there been studies on this?
- s2g 8y ago
  Regulation is essential to avoid having corporations run a country into the ground.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, and thereby increase monopoly and creating central hubs of systemic risk I realize that I've heard that before, but what is that based on? > There is no free lunch with one-size-fits-all rule making. Unfortunately regulators think there is. I've never heard of regulators, at least in the U.S., not considering the cost of regulations. It would be hard to avoid in the legal rule-making process.
carreau 8y ago
Cutting access in Europe does not solve anything. I'm living in US but I am European. Thus I can visit any of the above listed website they are processing my data, and GDPR applies to me. So they are not complying and I could file a complaint.
- denzil_correa 8y ago
  Personally, this is the fun part of GDPR for me. The days of weasling out of regulations for private data with cute workarounds are coming to an end.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    How in the heck is "blocking all European users" a cute work around? The laws apply to European people. What if a site just doesn't want any of these people to be customers? The EU can't force you to accept it's users. If anything, the business should sue the EU customers who accessed their website without permission. You are breaking the rules as a EU citzens by doing so.
- twanvl 8y ago
  > Thus I can visit any of the above listed website they are processing my data, and GDPR applies to me. "Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR." (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...)
- Kiro 8y ago
  You are wrong and spreading disinformation.
- amarkov 8y ago
  File a complaint with who? There's no EU-wide data privacy regulator. Which specific EU country would have jurisdiction over an interaction which took place in the US?

by kartan 8y ago

rdlecler1 8y ago

Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, and thereby increase monopoly and creating central hubs of systemic risk. There is no free lunch with one-size-fits-all rule making. Unfortunately regulators think there is.

fixermark 8y ago
And when it comes to European business law in particular, there's no reason to believe favoring incumbents and decreasing competition isn't an intended benefit. When Amazon entered the French market, it tripped over laws putting a floor on discounts allowed that are intended to protect book sellers, not purchasers.
hau 8y ago
Can you back up such strong and broad claims with something?
- baxtr 8y ago
  Not every claim on HN needs a backup. This one makes total sense to me. In this case, the article itself shows that regulation is definitely decreasing alternatives, which in turn can lead to monopolies
  - tommorris 8y ago
    Glad you can tell how regulation affects a market after less than one day of being active law, and zero enforcement actions or cases suggesting how courts/regulators are going to interpret the rules.
    - lajhsdfkl 8y ago
      You do know that GDPR is not the first regulation that has ever been written correct? There is a huge body of economic literature already dedicated to the subject.
      - freeflight 8y ago
        And you do know that not all regulations are the same? You are making it sound like some kind of universal consensus on the validity of regulations exists, but such a consensus does not exist because it's a way too complex, and wide, topic to be making blanket statements about.
  - denzil_correa 8y ago
    > This one makes total sense to me A lot of things “make sense” but aren’t true.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  It's hardly disputable that regulation creates barriers to entry. Nor it is disputable that barriers to entry limit competition. See everything from lemonade stands[1] to taxis[2] to banks[3]. What is disputable is whether in total a regulation has a net positive or negative effect. [1] http://www.newyorkcityfamily.com/2017/08/are-lemonade-stands-legal-in-new-york.html http://www.newyorkcityfamily.com/2017/08/are-lemonade-stands... [2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-business-model-breaking-traditional-barriers-entry-jack-welch https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-business-model-breaking-... [3] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031015/what-barriers-entry-exist-financial-services-sector.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031015/what-barrier...
  - vidarh 8y ago
    That it can, sure. It can also reduce barriers to entry. E.g. entering the ISP market anywhere in the EU is vastly simpler than it was, since the incumbents have faced legal requirements to lease last mile capacity at regulated prices (e.g. in the UK you can go to OpenReach's site and download the wholesale price lists), while they can also lay their own cables if then can afford it.
tommorris 8y ago
I was thinking about getting in to the car market but all these pesky requirements that I sell a car with airbags and seatbelts and fuel efficiency compliance are just there to protect existing incumbents.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  False equivalency.
- gohbgl 8y ago
  Airbags and seat belts were installed in cars long before they were required by regulators. The same goes for improvements in fuel efficiency. This all is driven by competing companies trying to make a profit.
  - inscionent 8y ago
    Air bags were 'installed before they were required' because auto manufactures in the US were given a 7 year period to add them, not out of competition based on safety. This only after a decade of the auto industry fighting to keep those safety features from being required, exactly because the auto makers were worried about profits and not consumer safety. "A Federal agency today abandoned the longdisputed requirement that automobile manufacturers install automatic crash protection, such as airbags or ''passive'' safety belts. The action by the agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drew immediate protest from safety groups and praise from the automobile industry." https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/24/us/airbag-regulation-on-cars-rescinded.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/24/us/airbag-regulation-on-c...
  - astura 8y ago
    No... this is just pure revisionist history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
- TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
  I think the phrase "You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything to the discussion" applies to your comment. No one here is saying that ALL regulations are bad or should be removed, just that all regulations have unintended consequences.
staplers 8y ago
Name any system that does not experience entropy.. all 'regulations' over time become corrupted/exploited. That's the nature of evolution and natural selection.
coherentpony 8y ago
That's your opinion, not a fact. Car manufacturers are required to put seatbelts in their cars because of regulation. In this case, it's not done to "decrease competition". It's not done to "increase monopoly". It's not done to "create central hubs of systemic risk". It's done to save lives. Regulations affect profits, yes. Regulations may have unintended consequences. Making regulations that protect people and still allow for a healthy free market is a hard thing to do. It's heavily context- and market-dependent. It is what it is and we have to live with it, but it's not as black-or-white as you make it sound.
josteink 8y ago
> Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition Except in Europe where it has done the exact opposite for telecom, especially compared to the unregulated US.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > telecom > unregulated US On the contrary, telecoms are very much regulated in the US. There is an entire commission for regulating radio/television/cable communications: the FCC. I could hardly choose a more regulated industry than telecommunications.
  - krisdol 8y ago
    The US has a problem of private industry infiltrating and co-opting government, and people largely normalizing it. The landscape for telecoms is simultaneously over-regulated with respect to allowing room for new players to enter the market, and under-regulated with respect to consumer rights. US regulations favor monopolies, and monopolies abuse their influence on regulatory boards to shut out new competition. Regulation can mean different things to different people. It's just stupid, one-dimensional, shallow thought to try to paint all regulation with a broad good-vs-bad brush.
    - taysic 8y ago
      This is not an issue exclusive to the US. Simply look at all the back room sweetheart tax deals made in the EU with government officials.
belorn 8y ago
The biggest area of regulations are food safety, health care, mining and transportation. There is a large theme for why does exist and rather established history on how things were before it. And while all those has their share of monopolies, I do not see how the current data handlers on the web before GDPR is better. Google is massive. Facebook is massive. The number of online news papers that hold 90% of the market are few. Talking about how regulations is going to increase monopolies where its already monopolized seems strange.
Angostura 8y ago
> Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, Whio is more likely to be hurt by GDPR. Google, or DuckDuckGo?
Paul-ish 8y ago
> Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, and thereby increase monopoly and creating central hubs of systemic risk. Have there been studies on this?
s2g 8y ago
Regulation is essential to avoid having corporations run a country into the ground.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, and thereby increase monopoly and creating central hubs of systemic risk I realize that I've heard that before, but what is that based on? > There is no free lunch with one-size-fits-all rule making. Unfortunately regulators think there is. I've never heard of regulators, at least in the U.S., not considering the cost of regulations. It would be hard to avoid in the legal rule-making process.

carreau 8y ago

Cutting access in Europe does not solve anything. I'm living in US but I am European. Thus I can visit any of the above listed website they are processing my data, and GDPR applies to me. So they are not complying and I could file a complaint.

denzil_correa 8y ago
Personally, this is the fun part of GDPR for me. The days of weasling out of regulations for private data with cute workarounds are coming to an end.
- stale2002 8y ago
  How in the heck is "blocking all European users" a cute work around? The laws apply to European people. What if a site just doesn't want any of these people to be customers? The EU can't force you to accept it's users. If anything, the business should sue the EU customers who accessed their website without permission. You are breaking the rules as a EU citzens by doing so.
twanvl 8y ago
> Thus I can visit any of the above listed website they are processing my data, and GDPR applies to me. "Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR." (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...)
Kiro 8y ago
You are wrong and spreading disinformation.
amarkov 8y ago
File a complaint with who? There's no EU-wide data privacy regulator. Which specific EU country would have jurisdiction over an interaction which took place in the US?