[chalst]

It's worth noting that this law wasn't produced in the usual way, and there was not much in the way of industry involvement in the legislation' s drafting process. About 15 months ago, I commented:

> I think it was not so much that the community was ignored, but that the law was passed under unusual circumstances: usually the lobbyists inform the legislators, who defer to industry on the specifics. Here the lobbyists mostly hated the legislation, but legislators were more responsive to privacy activists because of widespread public concern. So the law is a triumph of democracy over technocracy.

> And I think that's reflected in the legislation. The principles are OK, but the detail does not match up with practice. Hence the law is some way from being something workable.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2587995

So I don't think this is really the politician's fault, so much as problems with parliamentary process. Your idea of a technology commissioner might be helpful, but the whole problem here is that the EU Commission did not guide the legislation, with the drafting being driven by parliament.