I see this argument every so often but I'm wondering, what did we actually lose?
As many of us pointed out two years ago: time and money.
The collateral damage aspect is all the businesses that weren't doing dodgy things in the first place but still had to spend that time and money, because documentation had to be rewritten according to new formats, and policies had to be expressed in terms of the new sets of acceptable X, Y and Z, and so on.
I was not happy back then to find that despite having run businesses that were scrupulously respectful of privacy and security, we still ended up wasting weeks just on figuring out what we had to change (spoiler: nothing of substance, it was all red tape) and for a small business that is a nasty blow.
If you assume, probably rather naively, that all small businesses here in the UK had a similar minimum cost to ours just to review everything and dot the i's and cross the t's to ensure compliance with the new letter of the law, that alone would represent a cost of billions of pounds for little if any benefit to anyone in many of those cases.
The fact that the typical response from many posters on HN was to dismiss that cost as being somehow necessary or justified, with no regard at all for the very direct effects it would have on many small, bootstrapped businesses, showed an astonishing lack of perspective. The number of people in various forums around that time who just straight-up accused me of lying about my businesses being privacy-conscious already, for no other reason than that I run tech businesses and they treated all tech businesses as the enemies of privacy, was also pretty disappointing. There was very little objectivity in the discussions then, the much-lauded benefits to individuals faced with privacy intrusions by certain big players have almost entirely failed to materialise, and the costs and legal ambiguities for everyone are still there two years later.
As many of us pointed out two years ago: time and money.
The collateral damage aspect is all the businesses that weren't doing dodgy things in the first place but still had to spend that time and money, because documentation had to be rewritten according to new formats, and policies had to be expressed in terms of the new sets of acceptable X, Y and Z, and so on.
I was not happy back then to find that despite having run businesses that were scrupulously respectful of privacy and security, we still ended up wasting weeks just on figuring out what we had to change (spoiler: nothing of substance, it was all red tape) and for a small business that is a nasty blow.
If you assume, probably rather naively, that all small businesses here in the UK had a similar minimum cost to ours just to review everything and dot the i's and cross the t's to ensure compliance with the new letter of the law, that alone would represent a cost of billions of pounds for little if any benefit to anyone in many of those cases.
The fact that the typical response from many posters on HN was to dismiss that cost as being somehow necessary or justified, with no regard at all for the very direct effects it would have on many small, bootstrapped businesses, showed an astonishing lack of perspective. The number of people in various forums around that time who just straight-up accused me of lying about my businesses being privacy-conscious already, for no other reason than that I run tech businesses and they treated all tech businesses as the enemies of privacy, was also pretty disappointing. There was very little objectivity in the discussions then, the much-lauded benefits to individuals faced with privacy intrusions by certain big players have almost entirely failed to materialise, and the costs and legal ambiguities for everyone are still there two years later.