In legal contracts "whereas" often expresses sentiment but it's really the actual terms that matter. Having drafted a number of contracts, I feel most contracts generally have a section that approximates "whereas everyone wants things to go well and everyone to benefit..."
That's great that your company works well with GDPR. I imagine many companies will. I'm also sure that the impact on your backups could have been had without the law if you so chose.
However, an organisation that works inside the UK (EU) serving many EU paying customers (presuming here) is very different from say, Instapaper, who pulled out of the EU today because they don't make very much money from EU customers.
If we pass a regulation that says everyone who is in New York for any amount of time must pass an annual 1 hour health exam (conducted by NY state), I imagine this to be totally acceptable to New Yorkers. It correlates with good public policy: you prevent communicable diseases, and can catch health problem before it gets big. However, if this rule were to be enforced strongly, someone who might stop by once or twice a year probably is better off never coming.
That’s the wrong analogy. How about “everyone who is in new york for any amount of time had to not be actively harming new yorkers”. Sure some people who want to actively harm new yorkers are going to go away and never come back... but they’ll all be better off for it - and really every other state should probably pass a similar law.
Edit: duely noted. Libertarian capitalists of hacker news do not agree.
I find it amazing that you came up with the most one-sided argument you could think of ("not actively harming") and still didn't realize how badly it can misfire.
Here's a hint: my dentist is actively harming me when taking out a tooth.
This comment is personal data about you, specifically your political views. It's now in my browser cache. If you were to ask me to clear it, I'd probably say no. Am I actively harming you?
I was actively harmed by kennywinker's idea I actually would like to seek restitution from him for expressing it because I don't know of a way for him to have it fully erased from my mind.
...or maybe I shouldn't have used this site if I didn't want to be exposed. This is going to end up being less exposure for the EU to things on the internet until someone figures out how to monetize them. If they cost money without somehow contributing something they will be actively excluded.
I shared my political views publicly. I happened to also use a psuedo-anonymous account to do it. If I suspected my government was cracking down on vaguely anti libertarian-capitalist viewpoints I would probably ask hacker news to remove the extra metadata they might have on their machines that could be used to de-anonymize the comment.
I'm not too worried about your browser cache, but it could under the right circumstances give you some small power to harm me, yes.
That's great that your company works well with GDPR. I imagine many companies will. I'm also sure that the impact on your backups could have been had without the law if you so chose.
However, an organisation that works inside the UK (EU) serving many EU paying customers (presuming here) is very different from say, Instapaper, who pulled out of the EU today because they don't make very much money from EU customers.
If we pass a regulation that says everyone who is in New York for any amount of time must pass an annual 1 hour health exam (conducted by NY state), I imagine this to be totally acceptable to New Yorkers. It correlates with good public policy: you prevent communicable diseases, and can catch health problem before it gets big. However, if this rule were to be enforced strongly, someone who might stop by once or twice a year probably is better off never coming.