5 ms·

It seems like laws about how data gets handled are pretty much not real laws, due to there being almost no enforcement. So, most companies handle their data in

It seems like laws about how data gets handled are pretty much not real laws, due to there being almost no enforcement. So, most companies handle their data in a fairly careless way It might be illogical for companies to invest more into their IT infrastructure if there isn't a good reason to do so. I mean, even massive customer data leaks go basically unpunished, so how do you justify the mitigation expenses at the board meeting when shareholders are already mad about the lack of growth last quarter?

johndhi 3y ago
This would make for an interesting law review article
kccqzy 3y ago
> due to there being almost no enforcement It turns out investigation and enforcement is disproportionately doled out to large corporations. Companies like Alphabet and Meta have multiple teams to make sure they are handling data correctly and yet there could still be things that fall through the cracks. This regulatory attention on large companies is advantageous to startups though; until a startup gets big nobody really cares about its data handling compliance.
- danuker 3y ago
  > This regulatory attention on large companies is advantageous to startups Any reference about this? If anything, the GDPR fines make me think the opposite. https://danuker.go.ro/gdpranoia.html#fines https://danuker.go.ro/gdpranoia.html#fines
  - kccqzy 3y ago
    GDPR fines are for when you get caught. Nobody cares about small companies enough to catch them. On the other hand, big companies don't just deal with clearly defined responsibilities like GDPR; that's table stakes. They deal with random government investigations on data handling. If a company has multiple products, combining data from those multiple products could very well suddenly become antitrust concerns. What makes a particular data handling practice an antitrust concern? Companies don't really know in advance because it's purposefully vague and meant to be worked out by the courts. Think FTC in the US or CMA in the UK.

johndhi 3y ago

This would make for an interesting law review article

kccqzy 3y ago

> due to there being almost no enforcement It turns out investigation and enforcement is disproportionately doled out to large corporations. Companies like Alphabet and Meta have multiple teams to make sure they are handling data correctly and yet there could still be things that fall through the cracks. This regulatory attention on large companies is advantageous to startups though; until a startup gets big nobody really cares about its data handling compliance.

danuker 3y ago
> This regulatory attention on large companies is advantageous to startups Any reference about this? If anything, the GDPR fines make me think the opposite. https://danuker.go.ro/gdpranoia.html#fines https://danuker.go.ro/gdpranoia.html#fines
- kccqzy 3y ago
  GDPR fines are for when you get caught. Nobody cares about small companies enough to catch them. On the other hand, big companies don't just deal with clearly defined responsibilities like GDPR; that's table stakes. They deal with random government investigations on data handling. If a company has multiple products, combining data from those multiple products could very well suddenly become antitrust concerns. What makes a particular data handling practice an antitrust concern? Companies don't really know in advance because it's purposefully vague and meant to be worked out by the courts. Think FTC in the US or CMA in the UK.