6 ms·

I strongly hope that regulation is enforced independently of political convenience. And if it turns out to be misused that way, I'd demand it to stop. However,

by madez 8y ago

I strongly hope that regulation is enforced independently of political convenience. And if it turns out to be misused that way, I'd demand it to stop. However, let's wait for the facts first, shall we?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> let's wait for the facts first The fact is political bodies have been empowered with increased enforcement discretion. They are motivated, as political bodies, by politics. I watched the same thing happen, around 2012, in Frankfurt and Berlin with respect to Germany's regional banks. Weak and undercapitalized, in violation of EU rules, they were summarily ignored due to political necessity. The same tendencies will apply with GDPR. The lack of a requirement for politically-independent enforcement was a mistake.
- madez 8y ago
  > They are motivated, as political bodies, by politics. The "political bodies" in this case are the National Data Protection Authorities. They are indendent, and their only politics is ensuring compliance with the data protection regulation, as required by the GDPR, Article 52 [0]. Furthermore, due to lack of evidence, your example is not conclusive as to show that regulatory bodies act for political reasons they were not supposed to pursue. Also, if one regulatory body broke the rules, that does not mean that others will do so, too. However, I'd love to know the details of what bank was breaking what regulation and what authority was not acting according to their mission, if that is what you want to exemplify. [0] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-52-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-52-gdpr/
  - vsl 8y ago
    It is incredibly naive to think they are apolitical. They are part of executive branch, their actions directly affect state budget.
    - zielmicha 8y ago
      In Poland, for example, the chairman of this regulatory body has 4 year term and is unremovable. So he doesn't have many reasons to be political.
      - dexterdog 8y ago
        He has to be political to get the position in the first place and then again if he wants to get renewed (assuming it's not limited) or if he wants to move to a higher position after the four year. The only way to make it minimally political is to have the term limited to one and have the person be ineligible for any political appointment or government job of any kind at the end of the term.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by madez 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> let's wait for the facts first The fact is political bodies have been empowered with increased enforcement discretion. They are motivated, as political bodies, by politics. I watched the same thing happen, around 2012, in Frankfurt and Berlin with respect to Germany's regional banks. Weak and undercapitalized, in violation of EU rules, they were summarily ignored due to political necessity. The same tendencies will apply with GDPR. The lack of a requirement for politically-independent enforcement was a mistake.

madez 8y ago
> They are motivated, as political bodies, by politics. The "political bodies" in this case are the National Data Protection Authorities. They are indendent, and their only politics is ensuring compliance with the data protection regulation, as required by the GDPR, Article 52 [0]. Furthermore, due to lack of evidence, your example is not conclusive as to show that regulatory bodies act for political reasons they were not supposed to pursue. Also, if one regulatory body broke the rules, that does not mean that others will do so, too. However, I'd love to know the details of what bank was breaking what regulation and what authority was not acting according to their mission, if that is what you want to exemplify. [0] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-52-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-52-gdpr/
- vsl 8y ago
  It is incredibly naive to think they are apolitical. They are part of executive branch, their actions directly affect state budget.
  - zielmicha 8y ago
    In Poland, for example, the chairman of this regulatory body has 4 year term and is unremovable. So he doesn't have many reasons to be political.
    - dexterdog 8y ago
      He has to be political to get the position in the first place and then again if he wants to get renewed (assuming it's not limited) or if he wants to move to a higher position after the four year. The only way to make it minimally political is to have the term limited to one and have the person be ineligible for any political appointment or government job of any kind at the end of the term.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]