5 ms·
> This is one of the less appreciated clauses of the GDPR One wonders if this clause should have instead been its own, separate, narrowly focused legislation a
by kodablah 8y ago
> This is one of the less appreciated clauses of the GDPR
One wonders if this clause should have instead been its own, separate, narrowly focused legislation and enforced specifically as such.
- markovbot 8y agoAny particular reason? Seems like a reasonable thing for the GDPR to have.
- kodablah 8y agoSame reason you might do a gradual refractor instead of a large software rewrite. The more narrowly scoped a piece of legislation, the more feedback and implementation/enforcement can be tailored to the satisfaction of all before increasing scope (or not if ineffective). In the GDPR's case, it superseded existing data protection legislation because of a somewhat opposite mindset: the scope/consequences/enforcement weren't large enough. Also, such size potentially dilutes differing priorities by lumping several goals together thereby marrying its implementation success/failure to the general success/failure of the overall legislation.
- davewritescode 8y agoWriting laws is like writing software in every way except: 1. You have hundreds of code reviewers, many of whom will have their own motivations 2. The code base is hundreds of years old, poorly maintained and often contradictory in its goals. 3. You have hundreds of millions users.
- aidenn0 8y ago4. the machine that executes the code is ill-defined and will change far before the code you write is retired.
- coolaliasbro 8y agoIMO legislators should spend most of their time (at least until a reasonable "break even" is achieved") striking old, erroneous, irrelevant laws.
- YawningAngel 8y agoThese laws don't cost very much because they get deprecated through less formal mechanisms (they are reinterpreted, or the bodies responsible for enforcing or adjudicating them decline to do so), which makes this a very inefficient use of a legislature's time.
- int_19h 8y agoBetter yet, attach a sunset clause to every law, proportional to the number of votes it gets (and maybe unanimously passed = no sunset). Now they'll have to spend some of their time renewing old laws, and if anything is too toxic for the majority to vote for, it goes away.
- michaelt 8y agoThat would get rid of obsolete laws, but I'm not sure people would enjoy all the side-effects such a law would have, at least in the United States. For example, many more opportunities to cause government shutdowns, and many more must-pass bills that can be loaded with pork.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago> loaded with sunset port. ftfy. and I'd add that being from the US, I'd expect that sunset clauses on all laws would have the effect of giving the legislators something to do other than raise money for reelection.
- int_19h 8y agoIt would be an interesting test of what is actually "must pass", though. I also think it would encourage less partisan and more consensus-built legislation if the number of votes it passes with extends the amount of time before it sunsets, esp. if the relationship is not linear. Right now, if you have 50%+1 vote in the House, and 60 in the Senate, you don't have to care about the rest, so you can make legislation as extreme as you can while remaining within those boundaries. But if the difference in getting extra votes is a renewal vote in 25 years (with, say, 3/4 supermajority passing) versus just 5 years (50%+1), those extra votes may well be worth fighting for with some concessions.