3 ms·
The not sucking part needs to be a part of the law. You cannot leave intentions up for interpretation and then call those who point it out "dumb". Of course GD
by czardoz 8y ago
The not sucking part needs to be a part of the law. You cannot leave intentions up for interpretation and then call those who point it out "dumb".
Of course GDPR is a well intentioned law. It's implementation is debatable though, and you're basically asking people to not talk about its problems.
- jacquesm 8y ago> and you're basically asking people to not talk about its problems. On the contrary. I'd love to talk about those problems, but this isn't one of them. Data Subjects should have the right to make Data Subject Access Requests. But the context matters. If you want to really talk about the GDPR's problems then I think it would be better to focus on the Designated Representative bit, which is prohibitively expensive for small companies.
- czardoz 8y ago> On the contrary. I'd love to talk about those problems, but this isn't one of them. So you realize that this is a problem, but you'd rather not talk about it? Context matters, but the law should codify the context, and not leave it up for interpretation.
- jacquesm 8y agoWhy do you keep putting words in my mouth, that's the second time in a row. You have a very US centric view of laws and legality, this is not a US law so please try to shift your viewpoint to the EU way of doing this and then re-interpret.
- czardoz 8y agoI was trying to interpret what you're saying. You should also look at the whole thing from a US perspective before calling people with a US centric view "dumb".
- jacquesm 8y ago> You should also look at the whole thing from a US perspective before calling people with a US centric view "dumb". Where did I do that?
- opinionator1 8y agoYou've been using "US-centric" as a slur all over this thread.