4 ms·

It's definitely hard to say that big corporations are victims, but I know that I personally find lots of bog standard legalese hard to interpret. Granted, lawye

It's definitely hard to say that big corporations are victims, but I know that I personally find lots of bog standard legalese hard to interpret. Granted, lawyers have a lot more experience there, and more employed gives lots more perspective. At the end of the day, they are still human, and laws and regulations are still written by humans, meaning that it can often be hard to suss out intent from the letter of the law.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> standard legalese hard to interpret Indeed. We should know what the law is, without first hiring a team of lawyers. There's a trend to make laws that are harder and harder for ordinary people to understand. Partly that's a result of having to cut out exceptions and loopholes for lobbyists and donors; but I suspect it's largely because lawmakers are increasingly trained, practising lawyers. If the language you speak is legalese, I guess that's the language you use to write laws.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  oh and the facebook EULA is easy to ubderstand and grants you make rights and protections?
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Parts I read of GDPR were more approachable than any of the EULAs I have seen. More approachable than software licenses as well.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
The harder the better. Corporations should think thrice before collecting even one bit of information on anyone. They should be scrambling to forget everything they know about us the second we're done dealing with them. Storing data about people should actively cost them money. Keep adding difficulty and liability until they stop this surveillance capitalism nonsense.
- gameman144 4y ago
  Just so I understand your viewpoint, you're saying that the harder it is to understand/comply with the law, the better? If your goal is to prevent data collection, why wouldn't it be better to just draft a law that says "It's illegal to collect data" with super clear rules and enforcement criteria?

denton-scratch 4y ago

> standard legalese hard to interpret Indeed. We should know what the law is, without first hiring a team of lawyers. There's a trend to make laws that are harder and harder for ordinary people to understand. Partly that's a result of having to cut out exceptions and loopholes for lobbyists and donors; but I suspect it's largely because lawmakers are increasingly trained, practising lawyers. If the language you speak is legalese, I guess that's the language you use to write laws.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
oh and the facebook EULA is easy to ubderstand and grants you make rights and protections?
zelphirkalt 4y ago
Parts I read of GDPR were more approachable than any of the EULAs I have seen. More approachable than software licenses as well.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

The harder the better. Corporations should think thrice before collecting even one bit of information on anyone. They should be scrambling to forget everything they know about us the second we're done dealing with them. Storing data about people should actively cost them money. Keep adding difficulty and liability until they stop this surveillance capitalism nonsense.

gameman144 4y ago
Just so I understand your viewpoint, you're saying that the harder it is to understand/comply with the law, the better? If your goal is to prevent data collection, why wouldn't it be better to just draft a law that says "It's illegal to collect data" with super clear rules and enforcement criteria?