3 ms·
To me it's overreach because smaller measures could have been a better first step, this won't help the problem much, and it hurts the non-targets. I understand
by kodablah 8y ago
To me it's overreach because smaller measures could have been a better first step, this won't help the problem much, and it hurts the non-targets. I understand it's why you asked your government to work on the problem. We just need to stop pretending that any way they work on the problem is a good one.
- oblio 8y ago> We just need to stop pretending that any way they work on the problem is a good one. Just because the government does something, that thing is bad? I don't understand your logic... I quite like what they've done.
- kodablah 8y agoNo, just because they do something doesn't mean it's good. I don't like it, but then again I don't like the cloud act, some dmca provisions, etc. We can disagree whether the law is good or not, it's just that this topic (not you specifically) causes people to assume being against the legislation means being against its purpose. I think there were many better ways to work on the problem.
- M2Ys4U 8y agoSmaller measures were taken. The Data Protection Directive was adopted in 1995 and hasn't worked at preventing EU citizens' human rights from being abused.
- kodablah 8y agoSo using the law didn't work. What is a rational reaction? To try one of many other approaches? Of course not...draft and pass more laws, but bigger this time. If someone has a hammer and everything looks like a nail, all they are going to do when the hammer doesn't work is tweak the hammer. Instead of stepping back and saying that a provision in the law can be fixed here and there (e.g. requiring regulators to do something as if words are enough to usurp apathy), why not question whether the method in the first place is the problem?