[Y_Y]

FTA on why it was made:

> To show that GDPR is fucking stupid. Really, have a look at these crazy stats after 1 yr of GDPR:

    ~$60m in fines
    compliance costs for US firms estimated at $150b (2500x fine amount!)
    small co's hurt more than large. GOOG actually benefits!
    VC $ invested in EU startups drops significantly

Is it redundant to say that this characterisation seriously misses the point of the legislation, and that this is a lot of trouble to go to just make a childish nuisance?

[benjohnson]

In my opinion, regulation is better judged on the facts and not on it's intent.

For example, draconian drug laws have great intent but horrible externalities - so much so, that even though I'm vehemently opposed to recreational drug use, I'm now sympathetic to treating it as an illness and not as a crime.

[jarcane]

3/4 his bullet points sound like selling points to me.

I'm glad to see surveillance companies suffer.

That's rather the point of the thing.

[Vinnl]

This very much reminds me of people using Freedom of Information Requests to inconvenience the government, because they have some beef with them.

That does not make the right to such requests stupid, and it's annoying that there are people that abuse it and risk getting it watered down, thereby removing all positive effects. (Such as the effects those fines and compliance costs have on civil liberties.)

[solarkraft]

Wow, that's hilariously silly.

[Silhouette]

Most of the criticism of the GDPR isn't about its apparent intent, it's about its actual implementation, particularly with regard to ambiguity and proportionality.

I'm a critic of the GDPR, yet I'm also a big advocate of stronger privacy protections. I see no conflict here, because my criticism isn't about what the GDPR is trying to do, it's about what it actually does.