4 ms·

> 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 strug

by 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.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  The internet has seen an absolute explosion of innovation over the last 20 years, which has massively added value to our lives. Compare it to heavily regulated sectors like medical services, pharmaceuticals, education and banking/finance. You're totally ungrateful for what the 'invisible hand' has provided. You take all of the advances and services that emerged on the web over the last 20 years for granted. In other words, your assumptions don't factor in the link between the myriad of web services now available, and the freedom people have had to provide services on the web. The government has a constructive role to play in the market, in provisioning tools and information to empower people to maintain their privacy, which market players are not economically incentivized to provide in sufficient quantities. That would take the form of public funding for development of anonymity technologies, public directories comparing services and their abidance to voluntary data protection standards, and possibly public service announcements educating people about what data they disclose while browsing non-anonymously, or browsing particular types of websites, and how that data can be shared and used by private data collectors. What the government should not be doing is imposing Big Brother laws that violate the privacy rights of companies in relation to the data they store, which properly understood, belongs to them, regardless of who that information is pertaining to, and violate private property rights by regimenting how web service companies will operate. Centrally planning the web economy in the manner of imposing regulations like the GDPR is so ridiculously misguided. It is going to destroy innovation, and particularly, business creation.
Maarten88 8y ago
> The barrier to entry was raised. I think not: incumbents will have more changes to make than startups, who can think it through and get it right from the start (for everyone, ideally). Also the data-portability rule directly lowers the barrier to entry and creates huge opportunities for competition. Ad-tech startups who built their tech in the previous years may feel screwed by GDPR, but I won't shed any tears for them. They may carry on in the US, if that makes you happy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by wooter 8y ago

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.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
The internet has seen an absolute explosion of innovation over the last 20 years, which has massively added value to our lives. Compare it to heavily regulated sectors like medical services, pharmaceuticals, education and banking/finance. You're totally ungrateful for what the 'invisible hand' has provided. You take all of the advances and services that emerged on the web over the last 20 years for granted. In other words, your assumptions don't factor in the link between the myriad of web services now available, and the freedom people have had to provide services on the web. The government has a constructive role to play in the market, in provisioning tools and information to empower people to maintain their privacy, which market players are not economically incentivized to provide in sufficient quantities. That would take the form of public funding for development of anonymity technologies, public directories comparing services and their abidance to voluntary data protection standards, and possibly public service announcements educating people about what data they disclose while browsing non-anonymously, or browsing particular types of websites, and how that data can be shared and used by private data collectors. What the government should not be doing is imposing Big Brother laws that violate the privacy rights of companies in relation to the data they store, which properly understood, belongs to them, regardless of who that information is pertaining to, and violate private property rights by regimenting how web service companies will operate. Centrally planning the web economy in the manner of imposing regulations like the GDPR is so ridiculously misguided. It is going to destroy innovation, and particularly, business creation.

Maarten88 8y ago

> The barrier to entry was raised. I think not: incumbents will have more changes to make than startups, who can think it through and get it right from the start (for everyone, ideally). Also the data-portability rule directly lowers the barrier to entry and creates huge opportunities for competition. Ad-tech startups who built their tech in the previous years may feel screwed by GDPR, but I won't shed any tears for them. They may carry on in the US, if that makes you happy.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]