Hacker News Reader

Comment by Camas | Hacker News Reader

> that is, market failures - something this site would probably not call out but rather attribute it to the legislation.

Socially shaming companies does very little compared to legislation, so that's completely understandable.

View on HN

In general this might be agreeable. But in these cases these are not direct unintended consequences of the legislation but rather consequences of companies failing to do their due diligence when implementing GDPR. It would be like companies putting people in bomb disposal suits after sth like OSHA is implemented and complaining about the cost and lost productivity. Or to take the EU: Recently the CJEU ruled that all work time has to be tracked (not only overtime), and a German company (in Germany this wasn't mandated before) would force employees to install invasive phone apps that track location etc. and use to determine work time. Employees rightfully complaining should direct their anger at the company, not at a law that would work perfectly well with a standard punch card system

> But in these cases these are not direct unintended consequences of the legislation but rather consequences of companies failing to do their due diligence when implementing GDPR.

The complexity of additional law is part of its unintended consequences.

How is sending the recordings of one user to another a result of law complexity?

In any case, there's no increased complexity here; the Data Protection Directive (enacted in 1995) already mandated access to one's data (Article 12 - Right of access). The GDPR mostly gave some real teeth to that existing right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com