3 ms·

It would be great if there was a comprehensive analysis about how much money was spend complying with GDPR and what the resulting benefits to privacy are.

duxup 7y ago
I think it is going to take a while to see how / if enforcement plays out.
Mirioron 7y ago
While these sources don't answer your question directly, they do measure some impact of GDPR: >The tracking landscape post GDPR, adverse effects on competition and a market for compliance technologies https://whotracks.me/blog/gdpr-what-happened.html https://whotracks.me/blog/gdpr-what-happened.html By September, stats showed that Google and Facebook managed to stay relatively the same in the EU, while all the other ad companies lost reach. >The Short-Run Effects of GDPR on Technology Venture Investment https://www.nber.org/papers/w25248 https://www.nber.org/papers/w25248 (there's a link to the pdf) A paper by NBER finds that, in the short term, EU ventures relative to US ventures, raised less money, did fewer deals, and the deals raised less money. I think it'll take a lot more time to get an answer to your question directly though. It's also possible that any answers we do get are politically motivated (both for and against).
Sir_Substance 7y ago
That's not actually how the law works though. Restaurants lose a lot of money throwing out food that's probably good enough by the standards that most of us use in our kitchens at home but because there was an excursion in the fridge temperature of 2c or whatever the law says they have to throw it out. They could make a lot more money if they didn't have to do that, especially if chefs were allowed some discretion in when things are "out of date" like they used to have prior to food safety laws. However, as a society we actually don't want chefs to have that discretion because although we might trust an individual chef we sure don't trust every chef. So we set rules for restaurants because we would rather have some restaurants go bankrupt and there be fewer restaurants around than have everyone risk eating food that might be below standard every time they go out. Instead, we set an objective baseline criteria for food standards. Same thing with privacy. Your personal standard of privacy may or may not be higher than my personal standard of privacy, but society-wide we don't want privacy to be a roulette wheel or a tragedy of the commons, so we set an objective standard for it. That may or may not bankrupt some ad-tech companies who are reliant on the dodgy-chef techniques, but that's not a loss to society as a whole any more than losing dodgy restaurants would be.

duxup 7y ago

I think it is going to take a while to see how / if enforcement plays out.

Mirioron 7y ago

While these sources don't answer your question directly, they do measure some impact of GDPR: >The tracking landscape post GDPR, adverse effects on competition and a market for compliance technologies https://whotracks.me/blog/gdpr-what-happened.html https://whotracks.me/blog/gdpr-what-happened.html By September, stats showed that Google and Facebook managed to stay relatively the same in the EU, while all the other ad companies lost reach. >The Short-Run Effects of GDPR on Technology Venture Investment https://www.nber.org/papers/w25248 https://www.nber.org/papers/w25248 (there's a link to the pdf) A paper by NBER finds that, in the short term, EU ventures relative to US ventures, raised less money, did fewer deals, and the deals raised less money. I think it'll take a lot more time to get an answer to your question directly though. It's also possible that any answers we do get are politically motivated (both for and against).

Sir_Substance 7y ago

That's not actually how the law works though. Restaurants lose a lot of money throwing out food that's probably good enough by the standards that most of us use in our kitchens at home but because there was an excursion in the fridge temperature of 2c or whatever the law says they have to throw it out. They could make a lot more money if they didn't have to do that, especially if chefs were allowed some discretion in when things are "out of date" like they used to have prior to food safety laws. However, as a society we actually don't want chefs to have that discretion because although we might trust an individual chef we sure don't trust every chef. So we set rules for restaurants because we would rather have some restaurants go bankrupt and there be fewer restaurants around than have everyone risk eating food that might be below standard every time they go out. Instead, we set an objective baseline criteria for food standards. Same thing with privacy. Your personal standard of privacy may or may not be higher than my personal standard of privacy, but society-wide we don't want privacy to be a roulette wheel or a tragedy of the commons, so we set an objective standard for it. That may or may not bankrupt some ad-tech companies who are reliant on the dodgy-chef techniques, but that's not a loss to society as a whole any more than losing dodgy restaurants would be.