17 ms·

Then automate the process or hire an administrator to deal with stuff like this. It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law effi

by lykr0n 8y ago

Then automate the process or hire an administrator to deal with stuff like this. It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law efficiently.

cm2012 8y ago
That's what he's doing. And it costs a lot of money to do this.
- wooter 8y ago
  the inability of gdpr advocates to assess or even acknowledge the true cost and negative consequences of this law is extremely unsettling. everything from "its completely easy to implement [even-though i'm not even referring to any particular business model]" to "it requires development of non-product related features but won't hurt startups" to "proving compliance isn't a burdensome cost to completely innocent companies" to "if you can't do it, you shouldn't exist anyways [even-though no one is forcing anyone to use anything]" to "it is vague to give our benevolent regulators ability to enforce it selectively [and somehow always perfectly]" ironically, this very blogger made all the same arguments here: https://jacquesmattheij.com/gdpr-hysteria https://jacquesmattheij.com/gdpr-hysteria his response to his current concern is: "then automate it" as if this is trivial. and "my blog is compliant" as if this means anything for even the most basic business model.
  - Maarten88 8y ago
    > the true cost and negative consequences of this law is extremely unsettling I think the cost of not having this law is much higher. Also, lots companies had few problems automating the dissemination of users personal information to dozens of interested parties, building completely automated markets for this information with derivatives trading etc, all without users (and regulators) knowing or understanding anything about these practices. It is long overdue to put a stop to the excesses, and as a EU citizen I am extremely happy with GDPR. There will be new opportunities for startups, hopefully GDPR can help make sure these opportunities are less detrimental to society than before.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - wooter 8y ago
      > I think the cost of not having this law is much higher. There is no way you could know this and every indication to the contrary. Many EU countries are struggling with jobs and claiming to want a tech sector. This just made it much less likely. > There will be new opportunities for startups, The barrier to entry was raised. That means that startups which cannot afford proof of compliance will not exist - whether or not they meet your subjective definition of "detrimental to society."
      - samdoidge 8y ago
        Why are we down-voting this post? The argument seems logical. Respond with counter-points instead, please..
        Maarten88 8y ago
        >> There is no way you could know this and every indication to the contrary. > Why are we down-voting this post? Responding to that will certainly not lead to new insights or good discussion. I did respond to the other point.
        cm2012 8y ago
        It's a pretty valuable insight that adding friction to any system slows down the system more than the sum of it's parts.
      - GenericsMotors 8y ago
        This is what you get by leaving the invisible hand of the free market to "regulate" itself. Companies have enough rope to hang themselves dozens of times over with the way they collect and handle personal information (startups included), so it's no surprise that strong user-focused data protection is now law.
  - kerkeslager 8y ago
    > "if you can't do it, you shouldn't exist anyways [even-though no one is forcing anyone to use anything]" I'm in this camp, and to respond to your counterargument: No one is forcing anyone to use anything... except healthcare, health insurance, car insurance, etc. And in many cases, while you may not be forced to use a tool, not using it puts you at an extreme competitive disadvantage. People shouldn't have to choose between being able to compete and valuing their privacy. I'm fully on board with acknowledging that complying with GDPR has a pretty high cost, but the flipside of that is that if companies had done the right thing to begin with, a) the cost wouldn't be so high, and b) we wouldn't need this law.
  - zeveb 8y ago
    Yes, I find his previous 'the GDPR can't impose anything painful on you if you do things correctly' posts to be quite amusing in light of his most recent 'these folks are making things painful, even if you are doing what until yesterday I said was correct' posts. Moving targets are no fun at all when running a business.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      It's a pretty consistent position: If you have your house in order this letter is a non-issue. If you don't have your house in order you could take up to 3 months to answer the request, still a non-issue, but it might take you some work. Answering a request - even one engineered to be annoying - like this should not be a huge burden for any company that is not doing anything shady and that has been preparing for just such an event.
- Faark 8y ago
  I wonder if there would have been a better middle ground by allowing to charge a fee for such requests, like some freedom of information law does. We wouldn't want to make it a strong deterrent against sending such requests to large companies, though, that should have automated the process anyway.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    Or just reserve the bulk of the law’s teeth to projects crossing a low global revenue boundary. Somewhere around €1 million per year, on average.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > I wonder if there would have been a better middle ground by allowing to charge a fee for such requests In some cases you can, but most GDPR DSARs are going to be free of charge.
eadmund 8y ago
> It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law efficiently. No, it's not: it's the government's fault for passing an over-large law.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  You're right. Why should I have to spend my money to make sure I'm not polluting the environment? Make my products conform to safety regulations? Provide safe working conditions? Pay my taxes? It's all the governments fault for passing regulations that help consumers. Those fuckers.
  - wooter 8y ago
    many people disagree with preemptive, guilty until proven innocent regulation. many people also disagree with taxation in-so-far as they are not proportionate usage fees. And yes, certain regulations are definitely harmful. "But other regulations exist" isn't a valid excuse for any and all ever-increasing regulation.
    - lykr0n 8y ago
      Are you saying that there is no reason for GDPR to exist? None at all? It has nothing to do with all the data leaks that have happened, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica collecting information, invasive targeted ads?
      - Godel_unicode 8y ago
        I didn't read their comment to be that black and white, but rather to say that the law is overly vague and hard to comply with. Surely not the first such complaint you've heard.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    If GDPR was an environment law, it would say, "Hurting the environment means you can be subject to a $20,000,000 fine." Which sounds great! Except the biggest thing most people can do to hurt the environment, by far, is international flights. And everyone is wondering if the law meant to cover flights. And lots of people are saying, "You shouldn't be flying far anyway." And one expert is saying, obviously flights are excluded, and another is saying, fines are very likely. Etc etc.
mrlatinos 8y ago
> It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law efficiently. You're right, it's the EU's.

by lykr0n 8y ago

Then automate the process or hire an administrator to deal with stuff like this. It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law efficiently.

cm2012 8y ago

That's what he's doing. And it costs a lot of money to do this.

wooter 8y ago
the inability of gdpr advocates to assess or even acknowledge the true cost and negative consequences of this law is extremely unsettling. everything from "its completely easy to implement [even-though i'm not even referring to any particular business model]" to "it requires development of non-product related features but won't hurt startups" to "proving compliance isn't a burdensome cost to completely innocent companies" to "if you can't do it, you shouldn't exist anyways [even-though no one is forcing anyone to use anything]" to "it is vague to give our benevolent regulators ability to enforce it selectively [and somehow always perfectly]" ironically, this very blogger made all the same arguments here: https://jacquesmattheij.com/gdpr-hysteria https://jacquesmattheij.com/gdpr-hysteria his response to his current concern is: "then automate it" as if this is trivial. and "my blog is compliant" as if this means anything for even the most basic business model.
- Maarten88 8y ago
  > the true cost and negative consequences of this law is extremely unsettling I think the cost of not having this law is much higher. Also, lots companies had few problems automating the dissemination of users personal information to dozens of interested parties, building completely automated markets for this information with derivatives trading etc, all without users (and regulators) knowing or understanding anything about these practices. It is long overdue to put a stop to the excesses, and as a EU citizen I am extremely happy with GDPR. There will be new opportunities for startups, hopefully GDPR can help make sure these opportunities are less detrimental to society than before.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - wooter 8y ago
    > I think the cost of not having this law is much higher. There is no way you could know this and every indication to the contrary. Many EU countries are struggling with jobs and claiming to want a tech sector. This just made it much less likely. > There will be new opportunities for startups, The barrier to entry was raised. That means that startups which cannot afford proof of compliance will not exist - whether or not they meet your subjective definition of "detrimental to society."
    - samdoidge 8y ago
      Why are we down-voting this post? The argument seems logical. Respond with counter-points instead, please..
      - Maarten88 8y ago
        >> There is no way you could know this and every indication to the contrary. > Why are we down-voting this post? Responding to that will certainly not lead to new insights or good discussion. I did respond to the other point.
        cm2012 8y ago
        It's a pretty valuable insight that adding friction to any system slows down the system more than the sum of it's parts.
    - GenericsMotors 8y ago
      This is what you get by leaving the invisible hand of the free market to "regulate" itself. Companies have enough rope to hang themselves dozens of times over with the way they collect and handle personal information (startups included), so it's no surprise that strong user-focused data protection is now law.
- kerkeslager 8y ago
  > "if you can't do it, you shouldn't exist anyways [even-though no one is forcing anyone to use anything]" I'm in this camp, and to respond to your counterargument: No one is forcing anyone to use anything... except healthcare, health insurance, car insurance, etc. And in many cases, while you may not be forced to use a tool, not using it puts you at an extreme competitive disadvantage. People shouldn't have to choose between being able to compete and valuing their privacy. I'm fully on board with acknowledging that complying with GDPR has a pretty high cost, but the flipside of that is that if companies had done the right thing to begin with, a) the cost wouldn't be so high, and b) we wouldn't need this law.
- zeveb 8y ago
  Yes, I find his previous 'the GDPR can't impose anything painful on you if you do things correctly' posts to be quite amusing in light of his most recent 'these folks are making things painful, even if you are doing what until yesterday I said was correct' posts. Moving targets are no fun at all when running a business.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    It's a pretty consistent position: If you have your house in order this letter is a non-issue. If you don't have your house in order you could take up to 3 months to answer the request, still a non-issue, but it might take you some work. Answering a request - even one engineered to be annoying - like this should not be a huge burden for any company that is not doing anything shady and that has been preparing for just such an event.
Faark 8y ago
I wonder if there would have been a better middle ground by allowing to charge a fee for such requests, like some freedom of information law does. We wouldn't want to make it a strong deterrent against sending such requests to large companies, though, that should have automated the process anyway.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  Or just reserve the bulk of the law’s teeth to projects crossing a low global revenue boundary. Somewhere around €1 million per year, on average.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > I wonder if there would have been a better middle ground by allowing to charge a fee for such requests In some cases you can, but most GDPR DSARs are going to be free of charge.

eadmund 8y ago

> It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law efficiently. No, it's not: it's the government's fault for passing an over-large law.

lykr0n 8y ago
You're right. Why should I have to spend my money to make sure I'm not polluting the environment? Make my products conform to safety regulations? Provide safe working conditions? Pay my taxes? It's all the governments fault for passing regulations that help consumers. Those fuckers.
- wooter 8y ago
  many people disagree with preemptive, guilty until proven innocent regulation. many people also disagree with taxation in-so-far as they are not proportionate usage fees. And yes, certain regulations are definitely harmful. "But other regulations exist" isn't a valid excuse for any and all ever-increasing regulation.
  - lykr0n 8y ago
    Are you saying that there is no reason for GDPR to exist? None at all? It has nothing to do with all the data leaks that have happened, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica collecting information, invasive targeted ads?
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      I didn't read their comment to be that black and white, but rather to say that the law is overly vague and hard to comply with. Surely not the first such complaint you've heard.
- cm2012 8y ago
  If GDPR was an environment law, it would say, "Hurting the environment means you can be subject to a $20,000,000 fine." Which sounds great! Except the biggest thing most people can do to hurt the environment, by far, is international flights. And everyone is wondering if the law meant to cover flights. And lots of people are saying, "You shouldn't be flying far anyway." And one expert is saying, obviously flights are excluded, and another is saying, fines are very likely. Etc etc.

mrlatinos 8y ago

> It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law efficiently. You're right, it's the EU's.