That's so reductionist as to be useless. What is a "good" reason? Are you a judge that will be presiding over these cases? Things like that are massive holes for litigation and the cause of all these compliance issues in the first place.

It has 99 articles arranged over 11 chapters. It does not "just [say] that if you are keeping data, you have to have a good reason for it".

More than that, "compliance with a legal obligation" is specifically called out as one of the six legal bases for processing data.

It's like people are complaining about something they haven't taken the trouble to understand. That couldn't possibly happen HERE, the bastion of rational hacker ethic, could it?

I miss the days when "hacker ethic" meant weird Unix enthusiasts and not neolibertarian grifters...