3 ms·

Not at all. If you don't pay me, you're a guest, not a customer. Should guests have rights too? Of course! But guest rights are very different than customer rig

Not at all. If you don't pay me, you're a guest, not a customer. Should guests have rights too? Of course! But guest rights are very different than customer rights. Hosts should be held to a certain standard, and if they fail to meet that standard then they should expect to hear from regulators. What makes GDPR noxious is that it turns every individual interaction with the host into its own little mini-lawsuit, creating a potentially infinite burden and liability. It's actually an approach I usually think of as typically American, usually coming from the "don't need regulators because everything can be a tort" libertarians. For it to come from Europe is almost ironic. In any case it's the wrong way to address the problem, and its ill effects are seen in cases like this. It's actually easier for "free services like Facebook" to comply because they can hire full-time compliance staff. The worst effects fall on smaller sites and individuals, making them less able to compete - individually or collectively - with the entrenched big sites. Some have even painted it as a form of regulatory capture, though I think that's a bit of a stretch.

DanBC 8y ago
> What makes GDPR noxious is that it turns every individual interaction with the host into its own little mini-lawsuit, No, it really doesn't. In Europe action for civil torts is limited to what you've actually lost. There are no punitive civil claims. Courts are a method to get back to how you were, they're not a route to betterment. And GDPR is not enforced by each victim of a breach taking civil action through the courts, but by victims reporting to the regulator and allowing the regulator to take action. The reason people in Europe seem so blasé about this is because we've had decades of experience with regulation, and we know that they don't have many teeth, and tend not to use the teeth they do have. GDPR isn't changing this.
- notacoward 8y ago
  No, it doesn't create a new tort, but that's why I said mini lawsuit. The mandatory response and per-instance fines create the same sort of burden, even if they're administered through a body other than the courts. In some ways it would almost be better if it were through the courts, because at least there are established rules about evidence, nuisance suits, appeals, etc., but that wouldn't solve the fundamental problem.

DanBC 8y ago

> What makes GDPR noxious is that it turns every individual interaction with the host into its own little mini-lawsuit, No, it really doesn't. In Europe action for civil torts is limited to what you've actually lost. There are no punitive civil claims. Courts are a method to get back to how you were, they're not a route to betterment. And GDPR is not enforced by each victim of a breach taking civil action through the courts, but by victims reporting to the regulator and allowing the regulator to take action. The reason people in Europe seem so blasé about this is because we've had decades of experience with regulation, and we know that they don't have many teeth, and tend not to use the teeth they do have. GDPR isn't changing this.

notacoward 8y ago
No, it doesn't create a new tort, but that's why I said mini lawsuit. The mandatory response and per-instance fines create the same sort of burden, even if they're administered through a body other than the courts. In some ways it would almost be better if it were through the courts, because at least there are established rules about evidence, nuisance suits, appeals, etc., but that wouldn't solve the fundamental problem.