5 ms·

> GDPR was about telling the consumer what is being done with their data and about transparency, so at least it was for the people. If you say so. Seems to be

by scoom 8y ago

> GDPR was about telling the consumer what is being done with their data and about transparency, so at least it was for the people. If you say so. Seems to be more about threatening small players with risks well beyond anything reasonable. Their intention doesn't mesh well with the law as created. I'd say the biggest outcome is the number of services the EU has lost from the GDPR.

laumars 8y ago
The GDPR hasn't been used to threaten any smaller players. Many small players got paranoid because the GDPR allowed for large financial penalties in severe cases and against major players; but that's not the same as proactively threatening small players. The biggest problem with the GDPR is the FUD that surrounded it. How often is it that people are charged to the maximum effect of the law? Yet for some bizarre reason that's exactly what people thought would happen against every small operation once GDPR came into effect.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  > "hasn't been used" The smaller players are rightfully too afraid to do anything that the big players that can get away with. You may not see GDPR fining small players, but what you also won't see is small players innovating as much out of fear.
  - laumars 8y ago
    If "innovation" means selling my details without my concent or hosting my details on insecure infrastructure, then I welcome their inability to innovate. Thankfully though, it doesn't and they still can innovate.
    - laumars 8y ago
      A few people disagree with me it seems. Which is fair enough, we're all entitled to our own opinion. However the last two businesses I've worked for have all managed to innovate easily enough whilest still remaining inside the GDPR. Which is why I really don't see GDPR as a massive deal breaker.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  The GDPR hasn't been used much against anyone yet. It is far too early to draw any meaningful conclusions about what sort of real threat it does or doesn't pose and to whom. That ambiguity is itself a big part of the problem, because if you don't know how far you have to go to be compliant or what the real risks are if you get things wrong, you can't make informed decisions about anything you might need to do. If you don't do enough, you face the prospect of severe penalties. The GDPR's defenders can claim that enforcement will be reasonable and proportionate, but the fact is that the maximum potential penalties are written in law, and it's not as if national authorities have never been excessive with their EU-derived powers before. On the other hand, if you do too much, that's wasted time and money, possibly it's limited useful data processing more than you were actually required to, and now you're at a competitive disadvantage. The issues about filtering user-supplied content that arise because of the proposed copyright changes are directly analogous. There are vague suggestions about proportionality, but no-one really knows how this would play out, and the potential harm to anyone hosting other people's content if the new laws were interpreted in a different way could be severe.
- timrichard 8y ago
  > The biggest problem with the GDPR is the FUD that surrounded it. How often is it that people are charged to the maximum effect of the law? Yet for some bizarre reason that's exactly what people thought would happen against every small operation once GDPR came into effect. What do you think small operators would rather deal with? "You can be certain you're doing nothing wrong" or "You might be doing something wrong, but they'll probably be lenient". If geoblocking European visitors is no big loss, of course they'll go for it. Which many here seem strangely okay to accept, given staunch positions about net neutrality.

by scoom 8y ago

laumars 8y ago

The GDPR hasn't been used to threaten any smaller players. Many small players got paranoid because the GDPR allowed for large financial penalties in severe cases and against major players; but that's not the same as proactively threatening small players. The biggest problem with the GDPR is the FUD that surrounded it. How often is it that people are charged to the maximum effect of the law? Yet for some bizarre reason that's exactly what people thought would happen against every small operation once GDPR came into effect.

em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
> "hasn't been used" The smaller players are rightfully too afraid to do anything that the big players that can get away with. You may not see GDPR fining small players, but what you also won't see is small players innovating as much out of fear.
- laumars 8y ago
  If "innovation" means selling my details without my concent or hosting my details on insecure infrastructure, then I welcome their inability to innovate. Thankfully though, it doesn't and they still can innovate.
  - laumars 8y ago
    A few people disagree with me it seems. Which is fair enough, we're all entitled to our own opinion. However the last two businesses I've worked for have all managed to innovate easily enough whilest still remaining inside the GDPR. Which is why I really don't see GDPR as a massive deal breaker.
Silhouette 8y ago
The GDPR hasn't been used much against anyone yet. It is far too early to draw any meaningful conclusions about what sort of real threat it does or doesn't pose and to whom. That ambiguity is itself a big part of the problem, because if you don't know how far you have to go to be compliant or what the real risks are if you get things wrong, you can't make informed decisions about anything you might need to do. If you don't do enough, you face the prospect of severe penalties. The GDPR's defenders can claim that enforcement will be reasonable and proportionate, but the fact is that the maximum potential penalties are written in law, and it's not as if national authorities have never been excessive with their EU-derived powers before. On the other hand, if you do too much, that's wasted time and money, possibly it's limited useful data processing more than you were actually required to, and now you're at a competitive disadvantage. The issues about filtering user-supplied content that arise because of the proposed copyright changes are directly analogous. There are vague suggestions about proportionality, but no-one really knows how this would play out, and the potential harm to anyone hosting other people's content if the new laws were interpreted in a different way could be severe.
timrichard 8y ago
> The biggest problem with the GDPR is the FUD that surrounded it. How often is it that people are charged to the maximum effect of the law? Yet for some bizarre reason that's exactly what people thought would happen against every small operation once GDPR came into effect. What do you think small operators would rather deal with? "You can be certain you're doing nothing wrong" or "You might be doing something wrong, but they'll probably be lenient". If geoblocking European visitors is no big loss, of course they'll go for it. Which many here seem strangely okay to accept, given staunch positions about net neutrality.