[Silhouette]

If you have a law that would be impractical to enforce fully and in all cases because you'd end up penalising almost everyone it affects, it's a bad law. I don't believe we should legally prohibit normal behaviour for fallible humans, particularly if no real harm is caused and no ill intent was present.

Selective enforcement is rarely a good solution to that problem. With selective enforcement you have not only reduced the risk to those who really are doing something seriously wrong, so also reducing the deterrent effect, but also penalised those who paid a price or gave something up to do the right thing and were then left disadvantaged relative to the wrong-doers.

[ben_w]

> If you have a law that would be impractical to enforce fully and in all cases because you'd end up penalising almost everyone it affects, it's a bad law.

I think this describes almost every law, not just speed limits and GDPR but also copyright violation and drug use and… well perhaps not literally every law, but enough of them.

> I don't believe we should legally prohibit normal behaviour for fallible humans, particularly if no real harm is caused and no ill intent was present.

I don’t believe this describes GDPR. First because websites don’t really need to grab analytics, because stuff you genuinely need to provide a service is explicitly exempt from the GDPR informed active consent requirement; second because website and app development isn’t normal behaviour for normal humans, it’s a profession; third because this data does cause harm.

Yes, there are all those risks you list from selective enforcement.