4 ms·

Laws tend to be general. For example a lay might say something like: Communication between two parties needs to be secure. Now, what is secure, how do you defin

Laws tend to be general. For example a lay might say something like: Communication between two parties needs to be secure. Now, what is secure, how do you define it? Like tomte said you have the burden of proof. One way is to say you followed a standard because standards are formulated by "experts" and thus your communication is clear. An alternative is to develop your own secure algorithm - you might have to proof this at some point that it really is secure. If a law says that all communication needs to be encrypted using technique x, then it will be outdated as soon as this technique is broken. Thus a law specifying that communication should be secure is something that can last much longer Besides, this information is very technical and not in the slightest consumer oriented! After looking at the first document I certainly don't want to read further. That is why we have standard bodies, law makers and journalists to do this stuff for is. I don't think that a raw dump would help anybody

XODsQToxwi1eOy8 13y ago
No, actually, you don't have the burden of proof, that's the point. If that was the case, following a US standard, say, should probably be as good a defence as following an EU standard. Instead, one particular proprietary standard is exempted from you having to prove anything, except for the fact that you do follow the standard. That special treatment is what is being criticized here. Also, laws don't cease to be laws because they are not consumer oriented. Your argument applied analogously essentially would mean that it would be perfectly fine for all laws concerning the taxation of corporations to be secret because those are highly technical and not consumer oriented. These dumps are not meant for consumers, but for people who are required to follow the rules set by those standards.
- Tomte 13y ago
  Doesn't change your argument (I think), but please note that the standards in question are neither "US" nor "EU". They are International Standards (ISO, IEC) that just get reprinted (and translated) with different front matter by ANSI, DIN, BS and whatnot.

XODsQToxwi1eOy8 13y ago

No, actually, you don't have the burden of proof, that's the point. If that was the case, following a US standard, say, should probably be as good a defence as following an EU standard. Instead, one particular proprietary standard is exempted from you having to prove anything, except for the fact that you do follow the standard. That special treatment is what is being criticized here. Also, laws don't cease to be laws because they are not consumer oriented. Your argument applied analogously essentially would mean that it would be perfectly fine for all laws concerning the taxation of corporations to be secret because those are highly technical and not consumer oriented. These dumps are not meant for consumers, but for people who are required to follow the rules set by those standards.

Tomte 13y ago
Doesn't change your argument (I think), but please note that the standards in question are neither "US" nor "EU". They are International Standards (ISO, IEC) that just get reprinted (and translated) with different front matter by ANSI, DIN, BS and whatnot.