3 ms·

Wait, why is the metric we're using to judge legislation whether it's "against industry" and "for the people"? This sort of viewpoint will just reinforce Americ

Wait, why is the metric we're using to judge legislation whether it's "against industry" and "for the people"? This sort of viewpoint will just reinforce American stereotypes that all of Europe is some French-style capitalist hating blob. Industry is people! GDPR hurts the most for small firms created and run by people who already spent years slaving away at large corporations and decided to strike out on their own, only to be squashed by huge compliance costs that Google can pay but they cannot. Also, this whole "GDPR has good intentions therefore it's good" idea that is cropping up on this thread is very problematic. We don't judge laws by their intentions but by their outcomes.

tehabe 8y ago
It is a metric in case of many laws because of the huge amount of industry lobbying which prevents laws which benefit the common good and only benefit the short term goal of the industry, like this copyright law. Copyright came about to support and foster creativity, it was meant as new form of property because creativity has no clear boundaries. About the intentions of the GDPR, they were clearly to give people more control over their data and give business more restriction. The basic rule of the GDPR that companies should only store the data they really need at that time not more, not less. Overall this is what the GDPR does. My issues are more like, in some cases the burden for SME are too high and too weird for consumers. Like increasing the age limit from 13 to 16 or demanding complex privacy policies which no-one reads The GDPR should have been the basic privacy policy for everyone, only if you do something different you have to transparent about it. Like transferring data to a third party.