5 ms·

Because intent matters?

kodablah 8y ago
But why? People are affected by the practical application. Even if you argue that intent matters once it reaches a court or regulator, that is long past the effect.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  Because when a law is pushed by corporations, aimed at individuals, you're not likely to have much recourse, as an individual targeted by such a law. The hammer is going to drop on you and that's that. A law such as the GDPR, which is targeted at corporations primarily, is worded in such a way that no company is going to get massive fines if they seriously tried to comply, but for whatever reason failed to do so. They're going to get a dozen written warnings, guidance on complying etc. before they have to pay anything. Small businesses don't even need a data protection officer. Why this discrepancy between laws targeting individuals vs corporations? Because corporations control the flow of capital, control a large part of our politicians, can blackmail with outsourcing etc. None of this power is usually available to an individual.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Ah, you're saying it matters during design. Sure. I am talking about after passed, the intent matters very little. Too often on the GDPR and other legislation in effect, the intent is used to judge effectiveness which is invalid. When a law on the books is not working right, what it was trying to do is not an argument in favor of it working right.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > I am talking about after passed, the intent matters very little. The intent matters precisely because of how the law is going to be enforced when passed.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        But since its enforcement can be completely contrary to the intent, intent only matters to the enforcers if they want it to matter. The actual enforcement, whether intended or not, is what really matters.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > But since its enforcement can be completely contrary to the intent, intent only matters to the enforcers if they want it to matter. Right, and my argument is that with legislation intended to serve the people, (GDPR), enforcement is likely to be much closer in line with the intent than say Article 13, which is the other way around, (serving corporations, not people). Enforcers are newer as aggressive when protecting individuals as they are when protecting corporate interests. Apart from corruption, this is simply because of the leverage corporations have that individuals lack, (control of the flow of capital).
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

But why? People are affected by the practical application. Even if you argue that intent matters once it reaches a court or regulator, that is long past the effect.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
Because when a law is pushed by corporations, aimed at individuals, you're not likely to have much recourse, as an individual targeted by such a law. The hammer is going to drop on you and that's that. A law such as the GDPR, which is targeted at corporations primarily, is worded in such a way that no company is going to get massive fines if they seriously tried to comply, but for whatever reason failed to do so. They're going to get a dozen written warnings, guidance on complying etc. before they have to pay anything. Small businesses don't even need a data protection officer. Why this discrepancy between laws targeting individuals vs corporations? Because corporations control the flow of capital, control a large part of our politicians, can blackmail with outsourcing etc. None of this power is usually available to an individual.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Ah, you're saying it matters during design. Sure. I am talking about after passed, the intent matters very little. Too often on the GDPR and other legislation in effect, the intent is used to judge effectiveness which is invalid. When a law on the books is not working right, what it was trying to do is not an argument in favor of it working right.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > I am talking about after passed, the intent matters very little. The intent matters precisely because of how the law is going to be enforced when passed.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      But since its enforcement can be completely contrary to the intent, intent only matters to the enforcers if they want it to matter. The actual enforcement, whether intended or not, is what really matters.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > But since its enforcement can be completely contrary to the intent, intent only matters to the enforcers if they want it to matter. Right, and my argument is that with legislation intended to serve the people, (GDPR), enforcement is likely to be much closer in line with the intent than say Article 13, which is the other way around, (serving corporations, not people). Enforcers are newer as aggressive when protecting individuals as they are when protecting corporate interests. Apart from corruption, this is simply because of the leverage corporations have that individuals lack, (control of the flow of capital).
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]