Overbearing legislation applied by unelected representatives is being abused. If only there were technical solutions provided with an assumption of goodwill instead of 88 pages of mandates without such an assumption.
Legislation is usually applied by unellected people. Judicial independence is usually seen as a good thing. Perhaps you mean that the law was enacted by unellected people, which is also incorrect of course? So now I don't see your point at all?
The European Commission's members are sent there by the national governments. Elect another parliament/government if you don't like who yours did sent.
It's easier to vote "yes" in an quit the EU referendum than what you suggest. Which is what the Brits actually did. The former works while the latter doesn't.
We don't elect governments over here, just Parliament and President.
That’s like saying if you don’t like a police officer then elect a different city council. Parliament members don’t campaign on who they’ll nominate to the EU commission. Brexit can’t come fast enough.
Proposed yes. Just like in the UK un-elected civil servants propose all kinds of laws and regulation. Just like with the EU commission you only get to propose laws. The council of ministers (heads of states for EU countries) and the directly elected EU parliament actually get to enact regulation.
Being able tho propose a law is not ther same as enacting a law, and is not the same as applying a law which is what the parent comment said.
I'm not in the EU but must comply to their regulation.
The internet at it's base abstraction is a borderless medium without regard to locality. Imposing legislation by user region is a dangerous precedent as each region can now impose fee-seeking legislation on internet companies.
So what do you propose no laws at all for the internet? Or each jurisdiction makes orts own law? In which case would the US mind getting the hell back inside it's borders and stop trying to extradite British teenagers who alledgedly broke some 'hacking' law?
Sounds like Team America again.
The government's of the world are struggling with internet jurisdiction issues, currently the US is taking the stance that any act against their companies is a US matter, whereas the EU is looking at abuse of its citizens is an EU matter. Weaker states have no recourse at all. I find it hard to judge that the US stance is ethically better than the EU's
Any solutions should come from first level engineering principles not lawyers and politicians.
I don't care if it's US prosecuting a kid for hacking, companies storing and losing information on people or a space shuttle exploding. The problem lies in the failure of software and the solution should be in software.
Completely agree in general. It's a probability thing, given enough traffic all possible events happen.
That said I do not understand how these mandates protect anyone.
The bad actors are still going to be bad and lie about it, the honest actors just got burdened with some of the worst legislation in recent history without it even coming from our elected officials.
It's dangerous and I don't care for having to backtrack through years worth of projects in use and figure out how they can each be GDPR compliant. It's a tax on creators time and is imo one of the worst possible things legislators can do to an emerging space (as all software is).
How are the representatives "unelected"? The European Parliament is elected every five years by the citizens of all EU member states and voted on the GDPR in 2016 after long talks. Some even say that the GDPR is not hard enough.
The GDPR was passed by the European Comission, not the EP. Members of the EC are appointed, just like ministers in governments. But governments can only pass time limited decrees which then have to be signed into laws and voted for in Parliament. The EC which can pass binding regulations that apply indefinitely.
The GDPR was formally proposed by the European Commission, but it then went to the European Parliament (where it was amended). If the European Parliament had voted against it then it would have never become law.