5 ms·

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 w

by 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.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  > subject up to a $20,000,000 fine Up to 4% or 20Mill. A small startup won't get slapped with that size of a fine. If you are worried about those numbers, you should be able to hire a lawyer and ensure you are in compliance.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    It's whichever is higher, not whichever is lower. In other words, the minimum (higher level, lower level is of course lower) fine is €20m. https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/ https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      This has been rehashed to death: the maximum fine is 4% or 20M, the minimum is zero. So the fine is in range(0 ... max(4% gt, 20M)) Ok?
      - sanderjd 8y ago
        But would you agree that without any history of enforcement to look at yet, it may be prudent to base risk analyses on that maximum number?
        jacquesm 8y ago
        No, that would not be prudent. In fact, the opposite.
        sanderjd 8y ago
        Why?
        jacquesm 8y ago
        Because of the evidence documenting the last 20+ years of enforcement.
kss238 8y ago
Classic slippery slope. If any one complains of a single law being overly broad it obviously means they want every law repealed, right?!?
- hartator 8y ago
  Large laws are typical of abuse of power, yes.
  - criddell 8y ago
    Are you saying large laws result from abuse of power by corporation or that large laws are typically abused by the government? Either way, I think I agree.
    - hartator 8y ago
      Yes, both, organizations tend to expand their reach or die, having ambiguous laws is good way to ensure an organization will be here to stay.
dwild 8y ago
Why should I spend money to make sure I keep and delete all your information you gave me correctly? This is affecting a single person, the one that gave the information. He is fully responsible for his information, yet he gave it. It's like saying, well we should protect Tesla owner from using the ludicrous mode toward a wall. Maybe he should just not do it? The environment affect EVERYONE, it's important to protect it because of that. It's a single entity that affect everyone. It's funny because it's exactly the opposite of GPDR, which is a single entity (the one that gave the information to the company) that affect everyone (every potential customer of a company). GDPR just shift the blame over corporation instead of the one that gave the information in the first place. It shift the fear toward them instead of the one actually responsible for sharing it in the first place. I'm happy that GDPR will push company to keep less information, there so many website I avoided because they asked for information I didn't want to give, but that's an issue that many website already solved (because that friction was making less user too). What it did bad is add confusion.

by lykr0n 8y ago

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.

lykr0n 8y ago
> subject up to a $20,000,000 fine Up to 4% or 20Mill. A small startup won't get slapped with that size of a fine. If you are worried about those numbers, you should be able to hire a lawyer and ensure you are in compliance.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  It's whichever is higher, not whichever is lower. In other words, the minimum (higher level, lower level is of course lower) fine is €20m. https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/ https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    This has been rehashed to death: the maximum fine is 4% or 20M, the minimum is zero. So the fine is in range(0 ... max(4% gt, 20M)) Ok?
    - sanderjd 8y ago
      But would you agree that without any history of enforcement to look at yet, it may be prudent to base risk analyses on that maximum number?
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        No, that would not be prudent. In fact, the opposite.
        sanderjd 8y ago
        Why?
        jacquesm 8y ago
        Because of the evidence documenting the last 20+ years of enforcement.

kss238 8y ago

Classic slippery slope. If any one complains of a single law being overly broad it obviously means they want every law repealed, right?!?

hartator 8y ago
Large laws are typical of abuse of power, yes.
- criddell 8y ago
  Are you saying large laws result from abuse of power by corporation or that large laws are typically abused by the government? Either way, I think I agree.
  - hartator 8y ago
    Yes, both, organizations tend to expand their reach or die, having ambiguous laws is good way to ensure an organization will be here to stay.

dwild 8y ago

Why should I spend money to make sure I keep and delete all your information you gave me correctly? This is affecting a single person, the one that gave the information. He is fully responsible for his information, yet he gave it. It's like saying, well we should protect Tesla owner from using the ludicrous mode toward a wall. Maybe he should just not do it? The environment affect EVERYONE, it's important to protect it because of that. It's a single entity that affect everyone. It's funny because it's exactly the opposite of GPDR, which is a single entity (the one that gave the information to the company) that affect everyone (every potential customer of a company). GDPR just shift the blame over corporation instead of the one that gave the information in the first place. It shift the fear toward them instead of the one actually responsible for sharing it in the first place. I'm happy that GDPR will push company to keep less information, there so many website I avoided because they asked for information I didn't want to give, but that's an issue that many website already solved (because that friction was making less user too). What it did bad is add confusion.