3 ms·

> The VP and director love my product and want to start using it right away for their department. But their legal team is scared shitless with 4% fines in GDPR.

> The VP and director love my product and want to start using it right away for their department. But their legal team is scared shitless with 4% fines in GDPR. (snip) That's their interpretation of GDPR. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong. This is the side-effect of GDPR. I understand it's frustrating on your side, because you have no control over the response of your customers. But understanding what GDPR is (and not falling for FUD) is why the VPs and Directors get paid the big bucks and get the fancy titles. If they can't or won't work with legal to become compliant, they should resign and let someone else do the job properly. I'm not saying, "oh it's easy" -- it's not easy. But that doesn't make the law wrong either. And it's not OK to blame GDPR as being "bad", when those rules are mostly just putting some real enforcement around stuff all moral and ethical organizations should have already been doing anyway.

PKop 8y ago
It is your opinion that the law is not "bad" because you view the positive intentions of the law as bigger than the negative unintended harmful effects is has.. on people exactly like the OP. Your points don't "make the law right". In whose view? Right or wrong for whom? In his example he listed all the ways he is handling user data in a respectful way. And yet, he is still harmed by this law. That the VP and President may be doing their jobs wrong (in your view) is no recourse for OP, he is harmed all the same. And ... are they doing their jobs wrong? At the end of the day, they are limiting their risk. What threshold of risk of harm to their business and livelihoods would you feel is an acceptable tradeoff to comply?
mrep 8y ago
It doesn't make the law right either. Also, those VP's might be doing their job perfectly and the net effect could be that they cannot share data with any non-EU companies stifling their competitive advantages. There are many real world effects of GDPR and we are just starting to see the pros/cons of it.
pjscott 8y ago
If you judge a law on what its effects should be rather than what they will actually be when applied to imperfect people, plenty of terrible laws will look good.

PKop 8y ago

It is your opinion that the law is not "bad" because you view the positive intentions of the law as bigger than the negative unintended harmful effects is has.. on people exactly like the OP. Your points don't "make the law right". In whose view? Right or wrong for whom? In his example he listed all the ways he is handling user data in a respectful way. And yet, he is still harmed by this law. That the VP and President may be doing their jobs wrong (in your view) is no recourse for OP, he is harmed all the same. And ... are they doing their jobs wrong? At the end of the day, they are limiting their risk. What threshold of risk of harm to their business and livelihoods would you feel is an acceptable tradeoff to comply?

mrep 8y ago

It doesn't make the law right either. Also, those VP's might be doing their job perfectly and the net effect could be that they cannot share data with any non-EU companies stifling their competitive advantages. There are many real world effects of GDPR and we are just starting to see the pros/cons of it.

pjscott 8y ago

If you judge a law on what its effects should be rather than what they will actually be when applied to imperfect people, plenty of terrible laws will look good.