6 ms·

Laws that are open to interpretation with drastic consequences if it's interpreted against your favour pose unacceptable risk to business investors and stifle i

by hcfman 2y ago

Laws that are open to interpretation with drastic consequences if it's interpreted against your favour pose unacceptable risk to business investors and stifle innovation.

dns_snek 2y ago
People said that about GDPR. Laws that don't leave any room for interpretation are bound to have loopholes that pose unacceptable risk to the population.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  I think its quite clear gdpr has indeed lead to lower investment and delayed or cancelled products in Europe
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeffgreco 2y ago
    Yet better privacy protections than we in the States enjoy.
    - DocTomoe 2y ago
      The EU in a nutshell: You can't have nice things, but on the bright side Google/Apple/Facebook won't know what you had for dinner. Now give us your whole financial transaction and travel history, so we can share it with the US, a hostile country, citizen!
      - fredoliveira 2y ago
        Can we get some sources that back the narrative for that last sentence?
        DocTomoe 2y ago
        EU bending backwards to meet US demands to access non-US-related traveller records: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-us-agreement-on-airline-passenger-name-record-data.html?fromSummary=32 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-us-agr... Yes, it only affects airlines that have connections to the US. But if I book Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Tokyo, the PNR will still be sent to the US, for Lufthansa has connections to the US. Yes, there are 'safeguards' in there, to shackle the DHS to be responsible with the data - but who seriously thinks the data, once in US hands, is used responsibly and only for the matters outlined in the treaty? The US has been less of a reliable partner for decades now. Oh, right. They won't do that for financial transactions, right? Right? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/agreement-between-the-european-union-and-the-united-states-on-the-transfer-of-financial-messaging-data.html?fromSummary=23 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/agreement...
        fredoliveira 2y ago
        > Yes, it only affects airlines that have connections to the US. But if I book Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Tokyo, the PNR will still be sent to the US, for Lufthansa has connections to the US. Any proof of that claim? The agreement specifically mentions flights between the EU and the US, so any departure from that (like the scenario you describe) is unlawful, according to my own understanding.
        DocTomoe 2y ago
        Where do you read this only affects flights between the EU and the US? Article 2.1 clearly states it is applicable to all EU airlines *operating* flights to or from the US. That does not mean they ONLY have to provide PNR FOR those flights Article 3 speaks about "Data in their (the airlines) reservation systems". There's no limitation to only US-related flights. The specific mention of flights to and from the US you are likely refer to is in the preamble, referencing a law the US set up prior.
        csunbird 2y ago
        The financial transactions are also shared by the both sides, EU can also request data from US, as clearly stated in the document. Both document clearly define the uses cases that are applicable for the data sharing, and the second document linked by you also explicitly states that US has to put same effort to provide same capabilities to EU as well.
      - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        The USA in a nutshell: We elected a President who tried to lead an armed insurrection but we'll never press criminal charges because we elected him President again. Sorry, but anything the EU has ever done pales in comparison with that.
        DocTomoe 2y ago
        As an European, respectfully, I am not too interested in comparing the stability of my system of government with that of another country. I try to compare my circumstances to a better ideal, not a worse.
        vixen99 2y ago
        You're right, no competition. Let's face it, your President is a loser who can't even manage a simple insurrection; no proper planning I guess. Fortunately not much bloodshed though the defending side did manage to shoot dead one unarmed female ‘warrior’.
        linksnapzz 2y ago
        Of course. No EU president could lead an insurrection! The working group in Brussels charged with formalizing the insurrection guidelines to produce the right forms for the insurrectionists to apply for their mob permit...is currently stuck hammering out definitions between the Italian and Czech delegations. They hope the paperwork will be complete by 2053, which will allow an EU president to, hopefully, attempt some kind of coup (if everything is filled out correctly) sometime before 2060.
      - theyinwhy 2y ago
        Genuinely curious: What are those nice things Europe cannot have?
        DocTomoe 2y ago
        For starters, I am still waiting for Apple Intelligence to arrive on my phone. Reason given is "EU legislative concerns". Then there's the nontrivial number of especially local US news sources which now give me a cheerful "451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons" error code. Then there's the outright stupid stuff - like lightbulbs that do not cost 15 euros a piece (to save 'energy'), or drinking straws that do not dissolve in my coke within the first minute (to avoid 'disposable plastics'). There are hundreds of examples like that. The EU is a regulation juggernaut, and is making the world an actively worse place for everyone globally. See "Cookie Banners".
        robin_reala 2y ago
        What are you talking about? Leaving aside your other random complaints that I don’t recognise, but can’t immediately link to, a basic lightbulb is less than €3 for a two-pack: https://www.ikea.com/de/en/p/solhetta-led-bulb-e14-250-lumen-chandelier-opal-white-30584034/ https://www.ikea.com/de/en/p/solhetta-led-bulb-e14-250-lumen...
        cmenge 2y ago
        That's an LED though. I understood he was referring to incandescent light bulbs, which have been largely regulated out of the market. So you now need to get an "Edison light bulb" which circumvenes regulation but costs significantly more.
        naabb 2y ago
        Good, that's the point. Price out the products that are bad for the environment. They are still there if you want to contribute to the degradation of the environment
  - sporkydistance 2y ago
    GDPR is one of the best pieces of legislation to come out of the EU this century. It is the utter bane if "move fast and break things", and I'm so glad to have it. I will never understand the submissive disposition of Americans to billionaires who sell them out. They are all about being rugged Cow Boys while smashing systems that foster their own well-being. It's like their pathology to be independent makes them shoot at their own feet. Utterly baffling.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      It is because they want to be those oppressors. And they think this type of legislation might prevent them from being such. They want to be rich and exploit other people as much as possible with little as possible consequences.
    - throwawaymobule 2y ago
      You can still move fast and break things, just treat PII like explosive radioactive waste while you're doing it.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Speed isn’t always ideal. My favorite example that getting dated in hotel WiFi. Early adopters signed contracts with companies that provided shitty WiFi at high prices for a long time. A $500 hotel would have $30/night connections that were slow, while the Courtyard Marriott had it for free.
  - shortsunblack 2y ago
    By which data is that clear? If anything, GDPR has lead to greater investment in areas that actually matter. Zero knowledge proofs, pseudonymization techniques, user friendly open-source SaaS products such as NextCloud.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Can you share any data? It's also quite clear that places without strong privacy protections like the US are developing into dystopian hellscapes.
jeffdotdev 2y ago
There is no law that isn't open to interpretation. There is a reason for the judicial branch of government.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Well, the laws in civil law countries that practice legal literalism are not open to interpretation. Eastern Europe, much of which is a part of the EU, is quite literalist. The understanding is that interpreting laws leads to bias, partiality, and injustice; while following the letter of the law equally in each situation is the most just approach.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    I don't believe that's even possible — I'd love to see an example. How do you define anything 100% literally, 100% unambiguously? You'd have to include the entire language in your definition for a start, and keep that constantly updated.
    - caseyy 2y ago
      Lithuanian laws are a good example. They are extremely verbose compared to most common law countries. I lived in Lithuania for a while and at the time, there was a big national debate about how “family” should be defined in laws — what people it can and can’t include. So yes — a lot of emphasis is put on verbose definitions in literalist legal texts. And very very verbose explanations of many edge cases, too, I know first hand it will be very hard to read Lithuanian legal texts for someone who is not a native speaker of the language, and even for natives it’s a challenge. So you could instead google “literalist legal systems”, and I believe you’ll find at least some examples/more context in English somewhere.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Interpreting the law literally is very easy to do in a biased way: you just pick and choose when to do it.
BrenBarn 2y ago
A heck of a lot of what passes for "innovation" these days is stuff I absolutely want to stifle.
kakadu 2y ago
Me and my euro mates are not interested in this kid of "innovation". The "business investors" and "innovators" can take this kind of business elsewhere. This kind of talk where regulators are assaulted by free marketeers and freedom fighters is unacceptable here. Let us not misinterpret business people as "innovators", if what they do is not net positive for the society, they do not belong here.
- cmenge 2y ago
  I'm not sure where "here" is and who you think you speak for, but as a European, I am strictly against regulation, in particular vague regulation made by non-elected EU bureaucrats. And no, freedom of speech and a discussion about the pros and cons is also not "unacceptable". It is part of the democratic process.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - phtrivier 2y ago
    The AI act was voted by very-much-elected members of the EU parliament, in 2023, with a large consensus: 523 votes for, 46 against, 49 abstentions. [1] [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20240308IPR19015/intelligence-artificielle-les-deputes-adoptent-une-legislation-historique https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20240308IP...
- clarionbell 2y ago
  You seem to very strict about the kind of political discourse that you would allow. And I'm going to even elaborate on how problematic is your "net positive or society" and who would possibly be in charge of determining that.

by hcfman 2y ago

Laws that are open to interpretation with drastic consequences if it's interpreted against your favour pose unacceptable risk to business investors and stifle innovation.

dns_snek 2y ago

People said that about GDPR. Laws that don't leave any room for interpretation are bound to have loopholes that pose unacceptable risk to the population.

daedrdev 2y ago
I think its quite clear gdpr has indeed lead to lower investment and delayed or cancelled products in Europe
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jeffgreco 2y ago
  Yet better privacy protections than we in the States enjoy.
  - DocTomoe 2y ago
    The EU in a nutshell: You can't have nice things, but on the bright side Google/Apple/Facebook won't know what you had for dinner. Now give us your whole financial transaction and travel history, so we can share it with the US, a hostile country, citizen!
    - fredoliveira 2y ago
      Can we get some sources that back the narrative for that last sentence?
      - DocTomoe 2y ago
        EU bending backwards to meet US demands to access non-US-related traveller records: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-us-agreement-on-airline-passenger-name-record-data.html?fromSummary=32 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-us-agr... Yes, it only affects airlines that have connections to the US. But if I book Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Tokyo, the PNR will still be sent to the US, for Lufthansa has connections to the US. Yes, there are 'safeguards' in there, to shackle the DHS to be responsible with the data - but who seriously thinks the data, once in US hands, is used responsibly and only for the matters outlined in the treaty? The US has been less of a reliable partner for decades now. Oh, right. They won't do that for financial transactions, right? Right? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/agreement-between-the-european-union-and-the-united-states-on-the-transfer-of-financial-messaging-data.html?fromSummary=23 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/agreement...
        fredoliveira 2y ago
        > Yes, it only affects airlines that have connections to the US. But if I book Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Tokyo, the PNR will still be sent to the US, for Lufthansa has connections to the US. Any proof of that claim? The agreement specifically mentions flights between the EU and the US, so any departure from that (like the scenario you describe) is unlawful, according to my own understanding.
        DocTomoe 2y ago
        Where do you read this only affects flights between the EU and the US? Article 2.1 clearly states it is applicable to all EU airlines *operating* flights to or from the US. That does not mean they ONLY have to provide PNR FOR those flights Article 3 speaks about "Data in their (the airlines) reservation systems". There's no limitation to only US-related flights. The specific mention of flights to and from the US you are likely refer to is in the preamble, referencing a law the US set up prior.
        csunbird 2y ago
        The financial transactions are also shared by the both sides, EU can also request data from US, as clearly stated in the document. Both document clearly define the uses cases that are applicable for the data sharing, and the second document linked by you also explicitly states that US has to put same effort to provide same capabilities to EU as well.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      The USA in a nutshell: We elected a President who tried to lead an armed insurrection but we'll never press criminal charges because we elected him President again. Sorry, but anything the EU has ever done pales in comparison with that.
      - DocTomoe 2y ago
        As an European, respectfully, I am not too interested in comparing the stability of my system of government with that of another country. I try to compare my circumstances to a better ideal, not a worse.
      - vixen99 2y ago
        You're right, no competition. Let's face it, your President is a loser who can't even manage a simple insurrection; no proper planning I guess. Fortunately not much bloodshed though the defending side did manage to shoot dead one unarmed female ‘warrior’.
      - linksnapzz 2y ago
        Of course. No EU president could lead an insurrection! The working group in Brussels charged with formalizing the insurrection guidelines to produce the right forms for the insurrectionists to apply for their mob permit...is currently stuck hammering out definitions between the Italian and Czech delegations. They hope the paperwork will be complete by 2053, which will allow an EU president to, hopefully, attempt some kind of coup (if everything is filled out correctly) sometime before 2060.
    - theyinwhy 2y ago
      Genuinely curious: What are those nice things Europe cannot have?
      - DocTomoe 2y ago
        For starters, I am still waiting for Apple Intelligence to arrive on my phone. Reason given is "EU legislative concerns". Then there's the nontrivial number of especially local US news sources which now give me a cheerful "451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons" error code. Then there's the outright stupid stuff - like lightbulbs that do not cost 15 euros a piece (to save 'energy'), or drinking straws that do not dissolve in my coke within the first minute (to avoid 'disposable plastics'). There are hundreds of examples like that. The EU is a regulation juggernaut, and is making the world an actively worse place for everyone globally. See "Cookie Banners".
        robin_reala 2y ago
        What are you talking about? Leaving aside your other random complaints that I don’t recognise, but can’t immediately link to, a basic lightbulb is less than €3 for a two-pack: https://www.ikea.com/de/en/p/solhetta-led-bulb-e14-250-lumen-chandelier-opal-white-30584034/ https://www.ikea.com/de/en/p/solhetta-led-bulb-e14-250-lumen...
        cmenge 2y ago
        That's an LED though. I understood he was referring to incandescent light bulbs, which have been largely regulated out of the market. So you now need to get an "Edison light bulb" which circumvenes regulation but costs significantly more.
        naabb 2y ago
        Good, that's the point. Price out the products that are bad for the environment. They are still there if you want to contribute to the degradation of the environment
- sporkydistance 2y ago
  GDPR is one of the best pieces of legislation to come out of the EU this century. It is the utter bane if "move fast and break things", and I'm so glad to have it. I will never understand the submissive disposition of Americans to billionaires who sell them out. They are all about being rugged Cow Boys while smashing systems that foster their own well-being. It's like their pathology to be independent makes them shoot at their own feet. Utterly baffling.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    It is because they want to be those oppressors. And they think this type of legislation might prevent them from being such. They want to be rich and exploit other people as much as possible with little as possible consequences.
  - throwawaymobule 2y ago
    You can still move fast and break things, just treat PII like explosive radioactive waste while you're doing it.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Speed isn’t always ideal. My favorite example that getting dated in hotel WiFi. Early adopters signed contracts with companies that provided shitty WiFi at high prices for a long time. A $500 hotel would have $30/night connections that were slow, while the Courtyard Marriott had it for free.
- shortsunblack 2y ago
  By which data is that clear? If anything, GDPR has lead to greater investment in areas that actually matter. Zero knowledge proofs, pseudonymization techniques, user friendly open-source SaaS products such as NextCloud.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Can you share any data? It's also quite clear that places without strong privacy protections like the US are developing into dystopian hellscapes.

jeffdotdev 2y ago

There is no law that isn't open to interpretation. There is a reason for the judicial branch of government.

caseyy 2y ago
Well, the laws in civil law countries that practice legal literalism are not open to interpretation. Eastern Europe, much of which is a part of the EU, is quite literalist. The understanding is that interpreting laws leads to bias, partiality, and injustice; while following the letter of the law equally in each situation is the most just approach.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  I don't believe that's even possible — I'd love to see an example. How do you define anything 100% literally, 100% unambiguously? You'd have to include the entire language in your definition for a start, and keep that constantly updated.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    Lithuanian laws are a good example. They are extremely verbose compared to most common law countries. I lived in Lithuania for a while and at the time, there was a big national debate about how “family” should be defined in laws — what people it can and can’t include. So yes — a lot of emphasis is put on verbose definitions in literalist legal texts. And very very verbose explanations of many edge cases, too, I know first hand it will be very hard to read Lithuanian legal texts for someone who is not a native speaker of the language, and even for natives it’s a challenge. So you could instead google “literalist legal systems”, and I believe you’ll find at least some examples/more context in English somewhere.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Interpreting the law literally is very easy to do in a biased way: you just pick and choose when to do it.

BrenBarn 2y ago

A heck of a lot of what passes for "innovation" these days is stuff I absolutely want to stifle.

kakadu 2y ago

Me and my euro mates are not interested in this kid of "innovation". The "business investors" and "innovators" can take this kind of business elsewhere. This kind of talk where regulators are assaulted by free marketeers and freedom fighters is unacceptable here. Let us not misinterpret business people as "innovators", if what they do is not net positive for the society, they do not belong here.

cmenge 2y ago
I'm not sure where "here" is and who you think you speak for, but as a European, I am strictly against regulation, in particular vague regulation made by non-elected EU bureaucrats. And no, freedom of speech and a discussion about the pros and cons is also not "unacceptable". It is part of the democratic process.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- phtrivier 2y ago
  The AI act was voted by very-much-elected members of the EU parliament, in 2023, with a large consensus: 523 votes for, 46 against, 49 abstentions. [1] [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20240308IPR19015/intelligence-artificielle-les-deputes-adoptent-une-legislation-historique https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20240308IP...
clarionbell 2y ago
You seem to very strict about the kind of political discourse that you would allow. And I'm going to even elaborate on how problematic is your "net positive or society" and who would possibly be in charge of determining that.