Comments
By unbalancedevh 2026-02-0318:363 reply This kind of failure-to-enforce is endemic to government. Oversight and enforcement are implicitly expected of well-regulated governments, and that costs money that nobody wants to pay. Laws get enacted with little thought to how much it will cost to administer them, and they either get underfunded or added to the list of government bloat.
There is no easy way out. The oversight to ensure that governments do what they're expected to without corruption costs real money. We haven't yet figured out how to balance good government with fiscal efficiency; but it would at least be an improvement if people could be educated on the actual cost of properly implementing a law before it gets voted on.
As usual for cases like this, the only chance for a person to force compliance is to have enough money/resources, putting it out of reach for the general population.
By spwa4 2026-02-0319:02 This is one problem, but in the GPDR's case it's worse: the law is designed for governments. The only people who can actually take action based on the GPDR ... are NOT the courts (same with the AI act btw).
Which governments have immediately used to:
1) exempt themselves from GPDR (e.g. allowing the use of medical data in divorce cases, and then refusing deletion of medical data from public institutions "for that reason". Then of course this was extended to tax enforcement (some of you European bastards DARE to try to get dental treatment when owing back taxes! Some things CANNOT be allowed)
2) they used it to attack certain firms for entirely reasonable reasons. One example, one of the very first cases, before the law was even in force was against Google. You see there are some online articles about José Manuel Barroso, the communist non-executive chairman and senior adviser of London-based Goldman Sachs International (yes, really, communist, not a joke), ex-socialist, then EU commission president ... that according to him violate the "right to be forgotten" (which technically doesn't apply to public figures, but apparently EU commission presidents aren't public figures)
There were some articles he wanted deleted about how technically he is (was?) a murder suspect (he organized and participated demonstrations where some people were killed by a mob that he was part of, and probably the leader of), and how there were complaints against him by his students that allege he beat them up (as in physically), apparently in arguments about financial systems (yes, even when he was a pretty extreme communist he was a professor). He couldn't get the articles deleted ... and so he wanted them hidden. He got what he wanted, without court involvement.
We have figured out how to get money to enforce paying taxes and GDPR compliance: Pay them with the taxes and fines. USA's IRS has a famously high ROI, and I'm willing to bet a single GDPR fine for Google/Facebook/Microsoft pays for a whole lot of GDPR enforcement.
By ryandrake 2026-02-0318:58 In general, when it comes to enforcing laws on normal, individual people, governments seem to have no problem finding and cracking down on you. When it comes to enforcing laws on the rich, or corporations, suddenly the kid gloves go on and the "but we're simply not funded for enforcement!" excuses emerge...
By lo_zamoyski 2026-02-0318:561 reply While enforcement and the cost of enforcement is an important consideration, I would say that there is still value in unenforced law and regs. They set an expectation and a norm.
By xboxnolifes 2026-02-047:371 reply Sometimes. Other times they create an environment where the only rational action is for everyone to constantly break the law, allowing for selective enforcement.
By lo_zamoyski 2026-02-0518:45 You're describing something that isn't relevant. Besides, if breaking a law is the only rational action, then a fortiori the law cannot be just and therefore legitimate. Lex iniusta non est lex.
And w.r.t. enforcement of just laws, unless selective enforcement is used to target people for unjust reasons, I see no problem with it. In fact, selective enforcement can be a good thing that better serves the common good. Perfect enforcement can actually makes things worse.
Unfortunate. I've had good success rate with smaller companies, whereas I still have an open email chain with Deezer and Glovo in my inbox because their process required to much back and forward (Deezer was particularly stupid because while I had an active trial they couldn't delete my account).
I think the bigger problem is that the entire process is left up to the invidual, to both deal with the vendors (sometimes having to scavange the privacy policy for an email address, or follow multi step processes) and report to the local DPAs. And the local DPA could have as arbitraty rules for the process, and very involved form fillings.
It doesn't help when institutions smell as corruption, as likely seen in Ireland, where it took them almost 8 years to resolve a complaint against facebook and fine them.
Only line I always want to see go up https://www.enforcementtracker.com/?insights
By graemep 2026-02-0318:25 That is unfortunate as its more important to enforce the law big companies, especially those who trade data.
It could be worse: You could be in the US, where companies can buy and sell your personal information without consequence.
I would suggest the US is slightly better. At least we don’t have an unenforceable law that offers the illusion of privacy protections.
By datsci_est_2015 2026-02-0318:451 reply There’s an implicit assumption in this snark that the only purpose of a law is to create legal consequences (a subclass of error that’s very common on this forum, some type of “literalism”).
This is IMO a bit shortsighted: laws impact culture, laws represent ideals worth striving for, and in a democracy, laws help define the type of society in which the people would like to live.
A law’s utility is not limited to its ability to be enforced. In fact, in a democracy, when a law is not enforced, it is a strong signal that the will of the people is not being carried out by those charged with enforcement. See: the current USDOJ.
By lo_zamoyski 2026-02-0318:591 reply "Will of the people" aside, the law is indeed a teacher. It sets a norm and an expectation even when not enforced.
By isjdjsidjsidb 2026-02-0319:112 reply Except when “not enforced” becomes the norm and the expectation.
By lo_zamoyski 2026-02-0518:39 That's not the norm or an expectation in question, though. People get away with breaking laws all the time. It's very common. But the fact that something is illegal by itself exerts a psychological effect that sets an expectation and modulates the Overton window of the perceived norm. Such laws also enable enforcement. It is untrue that unless a law is perfectly enforced, it is useless or bad.
By datsci_est_2015 2026-02-0414:48 But you would agree that, despite the DEA not raiding dispensaries in legal states, the fact that marijuana is still a Schedule 1 drug still has some meaning? It’s almost retained as a pretense to keep certain prisoners behind bars despite the rest of society kind of moving on from the Reagan-era propaganda. So even though non-enforcement is the norm and expectation, the law still has an impact on society.
The purposes and effects of laws are complicated. This thread started because someone blithely claimed that the US is in a better situation because they have no laws concerning privacy because GPDR is difficult to enforce. I’m pushing back against that (as a US citizen) because it’s a damaging and myopic viewpoint that may or may not be based in American exceptionalism or techbro cynicism or something else entirely.
how is having NO law better? I'd say 12 out of 20, is better than zero.
By gretch 2026-02-0320:59 When enforcement is this shoddy, it’s easy to create corruption through selective enforcement.
“We don’t have the resources to go after everyone, so we must prioritize” - but it turns out there’s a bias to the selection process…
I believe that justice is only true when we are all treated equally under the law.
By zxcvasd 2026-02-0319:58 [dead]
