[xaedes]

In Germany they decided to make the EPA (electronic medical record) opt-out starting by 2024. Managed by "gematik GmbH", a company with limited liability. Because why should the entity responsible for all medical records have some liability. It is a joke, a bad one.

They don't even say how to opt-out.

[mo_42]

> Managed by "gematik GmbH", a company with limited liability. Because why should the entity responsible for all medical records have some liability.

I think it doesn't really matter in what form the government appears. It's still the government and so its rules apply.

[denton-scratch]

> I think it doesn't really matter in what form the government appears. It's still the government and so its rules apply.

If it's a "limited company", that means it's liability is limited to shareholder capital. It's going to have to have an awful lot of capital if it's going to be able to compensate the entire population for mishandling their data.

Also, if it's a limited company, then the shareholders can sell their shares; the company can change hands, often to owners in a different jurisdiction.

A limited company is not an arm of the government, and I can't hold a limited company accountable in the same way I can the government; especially if my personal data has left the jurisdiction.

[mo_42]

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...

Translation using Deepl:

Leasts on the Judgment of the First Senate of February 22, 2011 - 1 BvR 699/06 - Mixed-economy enterprises controlled by the public sector in private-law form are subject to a direct fundamental-rights obligation in the same way as wholly state-owned public enterprises organized in private-law forms.

[NavinF]

> GmbH

This is apparently the German equivalent to an LLC.

Pretty sure you misunderstood what "limited liability" means. Pretty much all organizations today have the same legal status: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability

[ClumsyPilot]

> Pretty much all organizations today have the same legal status

Thats exactly the issue

[Nifty3929]

Limited Liability is a GREAT thing. It allows us to build businesses that serve society that we wouldn't otherwise. Would you start a company or invest in one if you could lose all your personal wealth? Few would.

[hideo]

You're missing GPs point. GP is not arguing to remove the concept of LLCs.

GP is arguing that the entity in charge of all your medical information should not be an LLC. LLCs in general are great.

This company probably shouldn't be LLC.

[ianburrell]

Most companies are limited liability. All companies that would bid on project would be limited liability. Why do you think this project is special enough that the owners should be liable?

Also, LLC in US is kind of company. It is mostly used for small sole proprietorships and partnerships. Technically, public companies are “limited by shares” where shareholders are liable up to value of their shares. But there is no difference in terms of protecting owners from liability so they are called limited liability.

[Nifty3929]

If their lability was not limited, the company would not have been started.

[flangola7]

Why not? As long as they don't do anything that causes harm then the company isn't in danger. If they think it's likely they would cause harm, well then obviously they shouldn't exist.

[chopin]

If the liability is so great that an LLC is necessary maybe it shouldn't be done in the first place.

[JohnFen]

> Limited Liability is a GREAT thing.

Limited Liability is a double-edged sword. It does reduce the risk of starting a company. But it reduces some mechanisms to protect society from misbehaving companies.

[LatteLazy]

FYI, all liability is limited...