[discoursism]

> For a letter like this . . . our lawyer is the first call I'm making

/shrug It's your money. You could do that, or you could even light it on fire if you wish. It's no skin off my back. If your company is profitable enough to eat this self-imposed overhead, then its owners will just make less money. If it's not, then leaner competitors will replace it. I'm fine with either outcome.

[Silhouette]

In this area, we have no idea which overheads are actually going to prove justified and which are just throwing money away. That's one of my main points here. As I've argued several times on HN recently, a big part of the problem is that if you're running a small business that isn't handling large amounts of personal data but obviously is going to be subject to the GDPR like everyone else, there is no clear indication of what you have to do to be considered reasonably compliant.

The GDPR itself is very heavy and has little in the way of moderation for small-scale data controllers/processors, so in practice it's going to come down to interpretation by regulators (and potentially anyone who has rights under the GDPR and wants to make trouble, as in the example we're discussing). If you don't do enough, you potentially face even greater overheads due to formal audits, financial penalties, etc. If you do too much, then as you rightly point out, you leave yourself at a disadvantage compared to competition who don't do as much (and this remains the case even if that competition is knowingly breaking the law as a result, and that in turn doesn't matter if they face no meaningful penalties for it).

[discoursism]

> we have no idea which overheads are actually going to prove justified and which are just throwing money away

Life is risk. I contend that if you make a good faith effort to comply with this law (i.e. consult with a lawyer, once, to develop those eight documents you mentioned in another part of this thread) and generally practice good private information hygiene (wipe out old data, don't log private info, don't retain logs or emails too long, etc.), you're probably going to be fine. This is probably not going to be in the "inner loop" of risks your small business faces.

In every regulation, there are winners and losers. Some of the losers didn't do anything wrong, but are just losing because that's the nature of designing laws that factor in disparate interests. At this point, it's the law, and your only choice is how you're going to handle it. And my contention is that, if your small business is receiving letters like this with any regularity, calling a lawyer and spending half a day on it each time is not among the reasonable spectrum of risk-mitigating responses.

[xg15]

To be fair, the EU introduced a two-year transition period with the express purpose that businesses should update their processes and basically identify and prepare for potential problems such as this one.

This transition period is ending this summer. Why is this discussion taking place now?

[nopriorarrests]

I'm involved in GDPR-compliance taskforce in our company, and I can answer this question.

GDPR is very broad and open to interpretations, which will happen only when someone got caught, i.e. during first legal battles.

So, transition period does not really help, be that 2 years or 4. We need to see how this law gonna be enforced by regulators, and which common IT practices constitute breaking the law and which are not.

[Silhouette]

This transition period is ending this summer. Why is this discussion taking place now?

Because no-one thought to inform most of the businesses affected by it before, and awareness has only grown in recent weeks (and even then probably only among business people who frequent forums like HN where the subject has come up).

[vidarh]

> (and even then probably only among business people who frequent forums like HN where the subject has come up).

Every business I've worked with over the last couple of years of consulting have had sessions on GDPR entirely without any technically minded people having to bring it up.

I'm sure there will be people caught by surprise, by what I've seen has been very promising.

[Silhouette]

Every business I've worked with over the last couple of years of consulting

OK, but if you're going into a business and consulting, that already suggests both a certain scale and a degree of awareness within those businesses, so this isn't likely to be a representative sample.

[vidarh]

I'm not consulting on the GDPR, and my clients range from 2-person companies to 2000 people with most of them being much closer to the low end than the high, so while it certainly will be a biased selection in other respects (e.g. they're companies with a certain degree of technical complexity) I don't think it says much about awareness (other than already having more tech staff) or scale.

Additionally, most companies without much technical infrastructure are less likely to be affected much in the first place.

[DanBC]

> there is no clear indication of what you have to do to be considered reasonably compliant.

This is just untrue. THere are fucking reams of advice to small businesses.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/g...

[Silhouette]

Unfortunately, that guidance still doesn't provide specific, actionable advice in even a lot of everyday areas, as we've seen in just about every HN discussion on the GDPR in recent weeks when recurring themes like backups or log files or payment processing services come up.

Also, having "fucking reams of advice" is not a good thing. To be practically useful for the kind of organisation we're talking about, advice needs to be clear and concise. A starting point that will take days just to read through and understand isn't very helpful.