Pretending that clicking 'accept' under a page of legalese constitutes consent in any meaningful way is disingenuous and as a society we need to grow past it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.h...
Do EU lawsuits require the plaintiff to pay the legal costs of the defendant if they lose? If so, I doubt we'll be seeing GDRP trolls unless those GDRP trolls are well financed and prepared to pay all of the legal costs.
I agree with the GDPR in principle, but the manner in which the enforcement was setup, and the way it didn't phase in the aspects over time, and the way the fines are subjective from painful to destructive without any clear guidance as to how they will be levied, and considering the regulations were written in such a way that people seem to have a very poor understanding of what the actual rules are unless they have legal teams giving them the answers leaves me with doubts that this isn't yet another European regulatory money grab at the same time that it's a much needed advancement on privacy reform.
What's even better is all the non-lawyers posting blog posts saying STOP FREAKING OUT!!! Stop interpreting the rules wrong!!!
When you create a system that could amount to a severe financial risk, in the way this was done, I can't exactly rest easy given the advice of Jon Q. Blogspam Esq attorney from Wordpress School of Law.
If GDPR were clearly and rationally written, if it had a explicit grace period and progressive fines rather than instant potential massive liability, if regulators had front loaded more of the official clarifications prior to it taking effect so that everyone wouldn't have to pay law firms to ask the same questions, etc then we wouldn't all be flooded with stupid emails and misfires by every company we do business with. And saying that anyone who is afraid of GDPR is doing something bad with user data is just unfounded slander.
I am extremely pro-privacy and what they're trying to do for privacy here is great. The execution could have been much better. And I highly doubt the apologists will be around to explain why they were wrong when people operating in good faith, trying their best to be compliant are fined for non-compliance in an audit.
Is that plain wrong, or am I missing something?
