8 ms·

Cool. If it's so clear, then are you willing to be held liable if my company is found in violation of it due to your misreading? I'm guessing not. People who

by sbov 8y ago

Cool. If it's so clear, then are you willing to be held liable if my company is found in violation of it due to your misreading? I'm guessing not. People who are willing to put their reputation on the line, who are paid four figures per hour to understand this stuff, disagree with eachother on interpretations of GDPR.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> be held liable if my company is found in violation Forget about violations. Even if you're in perfect compliance, any EU resident can complain to their data authorities if they think you're non-compliant. That then prompts a regulatory inquiry, which requires lawyers to competently respond to, which is distracting and expensive.
- sureaboutthis 8y ago
  Hmm. Maybe we should violate this en masse and overload the system.
  - kybernetikos 8y ago
    That seems to be the approach that is being taken, albeit probably accidentally.
- pierrebai 8y ago
  Which is different from other civil law in what ways? Anyone can sue you over any civil law. Then teh courts decides. GDPR is not magically different. This is a straw man. The flurry of activities is only driven by companies who keep data about their users. Of course "legitimate" will be defined by the courts. That's the price you have to pay now for all the abuses that have been going on for the past two or three decades. History has shown that to define "legitimate" the text of the law is to open the doors to avoidance. Sorry mate, we can't trust you to be honest. It's too late now.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Anyone can sue you over any civil law The burden for filing a lawsuit is significantly higher than the burden for making a regulatory complaint.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      But in Europe, someone is more likely to complain to regulators than to sue you themselves.
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      That's true. That's why in my most recent dispute with insurance in Washington state, I filed a complaint to Washington State Insurance Commission. The Commission sent then a formal request to the insurance company in question, which suddenly made the insurance company much more eager to pay me what I think they owed me. Of course, just as you mentioned above, responding to complaints is distracting and expensive, which is why all insurance companies folded up the business up here, and there's no more insurance to be bought in Washington. (I'm kidding of course, insurance companies work here just fine.)
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > The Commission sent then a formal request to the insurance company in question, which suddenly made the insurance company much more eager to pay me what I think they owed me I'm a huge fan of complain-and-respond frameworks. I have complained to my state Attorney General when my cable company change pricing on me mid-contract. I complained to my state Department of Financial Services when a rebate issuer sent me a card instead of a cheque. I complained, the other night, when a construction company decided to run jackhammers on 26th Street at 1:30 in the morning. Complain-and-respond regimes work. They're also expensive, and cause known incumbency biases. Deploying them should be carefully considered. For insurance and financial services, the tradeoff makes sense. For literally every business that might ever touch a European's data, it's a bit overblown.
        8y ago
- DanBC 8y ago
  > which requires lawyers to competently respond to No, it doesn't. It requires you to answer the questions the regulator asks, and to see if you're currently following the guidance the regulator gives you.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > No, it doesn't. It requires you to answer the questions the regulator asks Most companies would--and do--retain lawyers to answer regulators' questions. Particularly when in respect of a new law, and doubly so given the political uncertainty currently present across the Continent. Naturally, one is free to self represent with regulators as one is in a court.
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      In practice, the small companies you’re so worried about regularly can and do interface with Governments - even e.g. the tax offices - and are regularly given some leniency so long as they’re not obviously trying to avoid complying with the law. “Fix the thing you’re doing wrong” is always going to be the first response of the regulator. This is not America. We do not regularly put people/companies into bankruptcy just because we can.
      - robryan 8y ago
        GDPR doesn't specifically state that though. If a country in the EU choose to make an example of my company for whatever reason would would be preventing them from doing that?
        DanBC 8y ago
        EU law states this though. > If a country in the EU choose to make an example of my company for whatever reason would would be preventing them from doing that? GDPR states all fines need to be proportionate.
        vertex-four 8y ago

by sbov 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> be held liable if my company is found in violation Forget about violations. Even if you're in perfect compliance, any EU resident can complain to their data authorities if they think you're non-compliant. That then prompts a regulatory inquiry, which requires lawyers to competently respond to, which is distracting and expensive.

sureaboutthis 8y ago
Hmm. Maybe we should violate this en masse and overload the system.
- kybernetikos 8y ago
  That seems to be the approach that is being taken, albeit probably accidentally.
pierrebai 8y ago
Which is different from other civil law in what ways? Anyone can sue you over any civil law. Then teh courts decides. GDPR is not magically different. This is a straw man. The flurry of activities is only driven by companies who keep data about their users. Of course "legitimate" will be defined by the courts. That's the price you have to pay now for all the abuses that have been going on for the past two or three decades. History has shown that to define "legitimate" the text of the law is to open the doors to avoidance. Sorry mate, we can't trust you to be honest. It's too late now.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Anyone can sue you over any civil law The burden for filing a lawsuit is significantly higher than the burden for making a regulatory complaint.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    But in Europe, someone is more likely to complain to regulators than to sue you themselves.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    That's true. That's why in my most recent dispute with insurance in Washington state, I filed a complaint to Washington State Insurance Commission. The Commission sent then a formal request to the insurance company in question, which suddenly made the insurance company much more eager to pay me what I think they owed me. Of course, just as you mentioned above, responding to complaints is distracting and expensive, which is why all insurance companies folded up the business up here, and there's no more insurance to be bought in Washington. (I'm kidding of course, insurance companies work here just fine.)
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > The Commission sent then a formal request to the insurance company in question, which suddenly made the insurance company much more eager to pay me what I think they owed me I'm a huge fan of complain-and-respond frameworks. I have complained to my state Attorney General when my cable company change pricing on me mid-contract. I complained to my state Department of Financial Services when a rebate issuer sent me a card instead of a cheque. I complained, the other night, when a construction company decided to run jackhammers on 26th Street at 1:30 in the morning. Complain-and-respond regimes work. They're also expensive, and cause known incumbency biases. Deploying them should be carefully considered. For insurance and financial services, the tradeoff makes sense. For literally every business that might ever touch a European's data, it's a bit overblown.
      - 8y ago
DanBC 8y ago
> which requires lawyers to competently respond to No, it doesn't. It requires you to answer the questions the regulator asks, and to see if you're currently following the guidance the regulator gives you.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > No, it doesn't. It requires you to answer the questions the regulator asks Most companies would--and do--retain lawyers to answer regulators' questions. Particularly when in respect of a new law, and doubly so given the political uncertainty currently present across the Continent. Naturally, one is free to self represent with regulators as one is in a court.
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    In practice, the small companies you’re so worried about regularly can and do interface with Governments - even e.g. the tax offices - and are regularly given some leniency so long as they’re not obviously trying to avoid complying with the law. “Fix the thing you’re doing wrong” is always going to be the first response of the regulator. This is not America. We do not regularly put people/companies into bankruptcy just because we can.
    - robryan 8y ago
      GDPR doesn't specifically state that though. If a country in the EU choose to make an example of my company for whatever reason would would be preventing them from doing that?
      - DanBC 8y ago
        EU law states this though. > If a country in the EU choose to make an example of my company for whatever reason would would be preventing them from doing that? GDPR states all fines need to be proportionate.
      - vertex-four 8y ago