3 ms·

Your argument would be more pervasive if it had any examples. > You can't legislate every harm out of existence Says country with highest murder rate among de

Your argument would be more pervasive if it had any examples. > You can't legislate every harm out of existence Says country with highest murder rate among developed nations. (Ok, so not a fair comparison but the political argument is the same). If there is anything US tech companies have shown us it is that the industry or consumers cannot handle data protection and privacy by themselves. There needs to be a good set of legislation to ensure it. Sure GDPR is a bit invasive and detailed in some areas - but the general idea and the way it works is good. To limit data collection, sharing and processing with rules is good. Unfortunately there are a few shortcomings to the law such as requirement to be explicit and notify about suppliers for data processors, documentation and deletion policies. > Rather, more measured approaches like education, consumer awareness, encouragement of alternatives, transparency requirements, and enforcement of existing statutes (fraud, personal info, etc) are leaped over. I can assure you that nothing has done more to educate consumers about data privacy than GDPR. Partly by media focus, but mainly by showing consumers what data they give away to companies by making this explicit. Regarding fraud it also has a positive impact as GDPR specifically requires encryption and other security measures. Companies might have not bothered to fix this before, but with GDPR fines of up to 4% of revenue they surely have.

kodablah 6y ago
> Ok, so not a fair comparison but the political argument is the same It's not. We have to avoid these analogies, because for every legislative success one can point to, there is a failure one can point to. For every positive national statistic one can point to, there is a negative statistic one can point to. > the industry or consumers cannot handle data protection and privacy by themselves While true, that doesn't always imply extreme measures. > but the general idea and the way it works is good Most people agree with the ideals. I argue the way it works is not good, neither as codified nor as implemented. For example, transparency requirements can have value. But such a large unenforced (or worse, selectively enforced) collection of requirements is only adding complexity to the system while providing only negligible benefit. > I can assure you that nothing has done more to educate consumers about data privacy than GDPR Exactly. If the only tool you use is a hammer, it's going to also be the most effective regardless if it's the best tool.
- sleepyhead 6y ago
  > I argue the way it works is not good, neither as codified nor as implemented. Do you have any proper arguments at all or are you just holding on to your ideology? I'm guessing you do not really know the details of GDPR since you haven't mentioned a single example or specific argument what is a problem in all the text you wrote in multiple comments. > It's not. Actually it is.

kodablah 6y ago

> Ok, so not a fair comparison but the political argument is the same It's not. We have to avoid these analogies, because for every legislative success one can point to, there is a failure one can point to. For every positive national statistic one can point to, there is a negative statistic one can point to. > the industry or consumers cannot handle data protection and privacy by themselves While true, that doesn't always imply extreme measures. > but the general idea and the way it works is good Most people agree with the ideals. I argue the way it works is not good, neither as codified nor as implemented. For example, transparency requirements can have value. But such a large unenforced (or worse, selectively enforced) collection of requirements is only adding complexity to the system while providing only negligible benefit. > I can assure you that nothing has done more to educate consumers about data privacy than GDPR Exactly. If the only tool you use is a hammer, it's going to also be the most effective regardless if it's the best tool.

sleepyhead 6y ago
> I argue the way it works is not good, neither as codified nor as implemented. Do you have any proper arguments at all or are you just holding on to your ideology? I'm guessing you do not really know the details of GDPR since you haven't mentioned a single example or specific argument what is a problem in all the text you wrote in multiple comments. > It's not. Actually it is.