4 ms·
It's both. The legislation, while based on good intentions, isn't exactly a prime example of an easy-to-implement, consistent set of rules. There's no excuse f
by BjoernKW 8y ago
It's both. The legislation, while based on good intentions, isn't exactly a prime example of an easy-to-implement, consistent set of rules.
There's no excuse for larger players to not implement these rules. Many smaller players however, struggled and in some cases still struggle with this because some of the rules are rather vague (sometimes intentionally so in order to be future-proof) and hence open for interpretation.
There's the rub: While the law is clearly targeted at larger companies - to the extent some have called it Lex Facebook - it's the smaller companies and hobbyists, for whom implementing GDPR is more of a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the long run, companies such as Facebook actually benefited from GDPR, at the expense of smaller competitors.
- oytis 8y ago> I wouldn't be surprised if, in the long run, companies such as Facebook actually benefited from GDPR, at the expense of smaller competitors. That is basically the end effect of any regulation: life gets harder for small players and newcomers.
- zucan 8y agoIs it really a problem with the specific implementation (GDPR) or rather with the general idea that a person should be in control about their data?
- BjoernKW 8y agoIt's a problem with the implementation. I have yet to meet a small business owner who doesn't agree that people should be in control of their data.
- fiiv 8y agoWhat part of it do you think is hard to do for small business exactly?
- BjoernKW 8y agoI described some of the issues small businesses are faced with in this comment on an earlier article about GDPR: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17099878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17099878