This guy doesn't like regulation and is playing to the crowd for sympathy.

Let alone full review of every system and legal review of the DPAs you have to sign and or create with every single co and processor.

If you are using only contract basis for the data it's really easy. You tell them that you are using their data for purposes of fulfilling the contract. The great thing about contract basis is they can't object. The only thing you need to do is to inform the customer of any 3rd parties you send their information to in order to fulfil the contract.

It only gets complicated if you want to use the data for other things. For legitimate interest (which is essentially exactly the same as the laws that are currently on the books) you need to be able to exclude processing the data if someone objects. You also need to make sure that you don't delete their data if they exercise their right of removal (which is completely bass-ackwards, but whatever). Consent is similar actually, but you have to get the consent up front. The other lawful bases are very unlikely to show up in most organisations.

I think the main problem with most organisations (and it's the case with the company I work for at the moment) is that control of private information is very loose. For example, we use several SaaS systems for our marketing. Some of them are clearly unnecessary and so we either have to remove that functionality or get consent. So there's lots of discussions about whether it is worth a huge wad of text thrown at the user in order to have cat emoji's or some stupid thing like that.

The other main problem is that if you want to use something other than contract basis, you need to build something that allows the user to exercise their rights. It can be a manual process, but if you have a lot of users it might threaten the margin.

Anyway, long story short: If you are only gathering the information that you need to do the work you are doing, there is likely very little (or in a lot of cases I bet nothing) to do. If you are gathering the information to use for your own purposes, then there may be a lot that you need to do.

Not to put too fine a point on that, personally I highly approve of this. I really could care less if somebody's business model is destroyed because it is now too expensive to collect information that you don't need to do the job. Even in the company I work for, where we don't actually use the data for nefarious purposes (AFAICT ;-) ), we're finally having some long overdue conversations about what stupid SaaS crap we're using under the hood. Not to be unkind, but I utterly fail to understand how marketing people fall for the same lies that they spew out themselves... "If only we send our customer's data to this service, they will find a way to drive more business our way! And we don't even have to pay them!" Yeah... right...

Similarly we sometimes get asked to incorporate silly things into our service because the marketing people think that it will create engagement. Again, these are free SaaS businesses that are scooping up data and selling it. Although I made up the cat emoji thing, it's not that far off what we sometimes get asked to incorporate. With GDPR, those businesses are going to have to charge for their services and that's going to have to come out of our budget. We don't have to argue "We're not shipping our whole customer database over to a SaaS just so we can have cat emojis on the the system". Similarly, it makes our systems simpler because if they really want cat emojis, we can implement them -- it's just not "free" (it never was, but it's hard to have that conversation sometimes).

I probably should have left the SaaS thing out of my explanation because it's confusing and only slightly related to what I was talking about :-). Like I said, we use some great services for marketing and will continue to do so under GDPR.

how could you "not need" data if the loss "destroyed" the business model?

For example, my business model might be to ask you for your login and password information for your bank so that I can help myself to the contents of your bank account. In return I'll send you a newsletter on how to get rich quick :-)

I doubt you are asking seriously, but in case you are, the distinction is: if I need the information to complete the contract, then it is under contract basis and I'm allowed to use it for that purpose. If it's not needed for completing the contract, but I have a legitimate reason for using the data anyway (kind of vague, but includes marketing -- basically all the stuff that was legal before GDPR) I can do so, but I need to tell you I'm doing it. You can object and then I have to stop. If I have no legitimate reason for using the data, but I want to anyway, I can still do it. I need to ask for your consent (which has to be opt in). My service can't depend on you opting in (because I have no legitimate reason for needing the data). I can't deny service just because you opt out. You can also withdraw your consent at any time.

So in my silly example at the top, I could literally ask for consent to use your login details for you bank. If you agreed, I could use them. However, since I have no legitimate interest in your bank login details (other than I wanna look at your bank balance), I can't make my service depend on that.

If your business model is based on making money from data that you have no legitimate interest in and you have no consent for... well, I really, truly have no sympathy at all. I understand that some people may have a different opinion, but I don't think mine is really that unreasonable.

Vs to package and resell the subject.

It is a matter of making subjects of data collection in control of their data being sold without their consent to the real customer, someone else.

Not the OP, but it's pretty straight forward for most people (including the author of TFA). You need to identify what private information you collect.

Fair enough.

You need to decide what lawful basis you are using to collect that data. If you have no lawful basis, you have to stop collecting that data.

Right, but probably the most practically relevant basis for anything non-trivial will be legitimate interests, which of course involves balancing tests. Even today, just a week before this all comes into effect, there is little guidance about where regulators will find that balance.

If you are using consent lawful basis, you need to get consent in an opt-in manner. You need to record what statement you have shown to the user and any consent that you receive.

But this is retrospective and stronger than the previous requirement. Even if you have always been transparent about your intentions and acquired genuine opt-in from willing users, you are now likely to be on the wrong side of the GDPR if you can't produce the exact wording that was on your web site or double opt-in email a decade ago. The most visible effect of the GDPR so far seems to be an endless stream of emails begging people to opt in to continue receiving things, even where people had almost certainly genuinely opted in already before.

For legitimate interest (which is essentially exactly the same as the laws that are currently on the books) you need to be able to exclude processing the data if someone objects.

Not quite. There also appear to be a balancing aspects here, though with some additional complications involving direct marketing, kids, and various other specific circumstances.

Take a common example of analytics for a web site. These may include personal data because of things like IP addresses or being tied to a specific account. Typically these have relatively low risk of harm for data subjects, but if for example a site deals with sensitive subject matter then that won't necessarily be the case either.

A business might have a demonstrable interest in retaining that data for a considerable period in order to protect itself against fraud, violation of its terms, or other obviously serious risks. Maybe the regulators will consider that those interests outweigh the risk to an individual's privacy if their IP address is retained for several years, at least in some cases. Maybe they will find differently if it's the web site for a drug treatment clinic than if it's an online gaming site.

Even if the subject matter isn't sensitive, where does the line get drawn? A business that offers a lot of free material on its site to attract interest from visitors might itself have a legitimate interest in seeing who is visiting the site and tracking conversion flows that could involve several channels over a period of months. This is arguably less important than protecting against something like fraud, but nevertheless the whole model that provides the free material may only be viable if the conversions are good enough. But equally, maybe it's not strictly necessary for the operation of the site and whatever services it offers for real money, so should the visitor's interest in not having their IP address floating around in someone's analytics database outweigh the site that is offering free content in exchange for little else in return?

That's just one simple, everyday example of the ambiguity involved here, and as far as I'm aware the regulator in my country has yet to offer any guidance in this area. Would any of the GDPR's defenders here like to give a black and white statement about this example and when the processing will or won't be legal under the new regulations?

The other lawful bases are very unlikely to show up in most organisations.

I would think the basis that you have to comply with some other law is also likely to be quite common. It will immediately cover various personal data about identifying customers and recording their transactions for accounting purposes, for example. But again, since that will include the proof of location requirements for VAT purposes in some cases, how much evidence is a merchant required to keep to cover themselves on that front, and when does it cross into keeping too much under GDPR?

The other main problem is that if you want to use something other than contract basis, you need to build something that allows the user to exercise their rights.

And once again, those rights are significantly stronger under the GDPR, particularly around erasure or objecting to processing. Setting up new systems that comply may not be too difficult, but what about legacy systems that were not unreasonable at the time but don't allow for isolated deletion of personal data? To my knowledge, there is still a lot of ambiguity around how far "erasure" actually goes, particularly regarding unstructured data such as emails or personal notes kept by staff while dealing with some issue, or potentially long-lived data in archives that are available but no longer in routine use. And then you get all the data that is built incrementally, from source control systems to blockchain, where by construction it may be difficult or impossible to selectively erase partial data in the middle.

Not to put too fine a point on that, personally I highly approve of this. I really could care less if somebody's business model is destroyed because it is now too expensive to collect information that you don't need to do the job.

But what if an online service's business model relies on processing profile data for purposes such as targeting ads to be viable, and regulators decide that a subject's right to object to that processing outweighs its necessity to the financial model?

It's easy to say a lot of people might not like being tracked, but on the other hand, if services like Google and Facebook all disappeared in the EU as a result of the GDPR, I'm not sure how popular it would be. There are two legitimate sides to this debate, and neither extreme is obviously correct.

A point is that often statements of a law are defined not by the language but by the ruling of lawsuits that occur around those statements and that is what most companies and lawyers are waiting for, what do courts rule when these lawsuits happen.

The biggest issue that I have heard of (Im no expert) is what does the right to be forgotten actually mean ? Does that mean all your backups are now illegal as you are retaining the customers information after they asked you to remove their records?

I think some of the fear that smaller business have is that this will encourage lawsuits until people understand how the courts will rule on each item.

But to answer your question about the right to erasure, here is the law: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/

I can't find it right now (and I have to get back to work), but there is a reasonableness requirement for requests. So things like backups might be covered by that. I wish there was some direction on that because it's a problem for me at work as well.

My opinion is that the directive's view is that all personal data retention should be temporary. There should be a defined point where the personal data is deleted. Either that's when it's no longer necessary for the contract, or when you no longer have a legitimate interest in it, or when the user asks for the removal.

Up to this point, most of us have been building databases with the intent of retaining the information indefinitely. So we never thought about this. Although I'm a fan of this law, I admit that it's going to be troublesome transitioning from where we were to where we need to go.

And as the parent briefly stated, immutable databases are going to be a serious problem.

If a data subject requests their data to be erased, you should remove their data from active systems so that it is no longer being processed, but you don't have to remove it from backups or other passive systems. You should however store some sort of marker so that if you need to restore data from backups, the data subject's data will be re-erased or otherwise stopped from entering active systems again.

And if a data subject asks, you have to tell them how long you store your backups of their personal data.

I think that's perfectly reasonable. And if your backup retention policy is "forever", now might be a good time to re-evaluate that policy.

That concern really is unfounded, though. The primary means of enforcement of the GDPR will be action by national data protection regulators. It isn't some carte blanche for trigger-happy lawyers to start suing every business that gets a little detail wrong or anything like that.

The general concern that the picture is unclear until something happens to clarify it is, unfortunately, much better founded.

forgive my frank language, but too fucking bad.

edit: my right always outweigh your profits. Sorry.

The data collected under the former is simply the IP and a timestamp in webserver and app logs, usually purged within 7 days and then any user data included in backups, purged after 3 months.

"better user experience" is not really personal data but I included it anyways; browser type (mozilla/edge/etc.), viewport resolution, pageload time, OS. And not stored in a way that allows correlating them.

For analytics that is really all I need.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

> processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

"Analytics" is not what his company is for, ergo, using my Personal Data to do analytics isn't okay. He sure as hell isn't doing it for my benefit. I'm also not hiring him for security, so the same reasoning applies: he doesn't get to store my IP address in his logs without asking.

And when I say "no" to his opt-in modal, he'll still have to provide me non-degraded service. The fact that he can do so is yet another indicator that the data collection is not a legitimate interest.

Look, you can definitely discover and monitor for problems by simply hashing IPs and storing the hash instead. Once you've detected a potential problem (say, a lot of requests from the same hash), only then do you have a "legitimate business need" to record the actual IP addresses and do some short-term analysis of the situation.

The spirit of the law is simple: if you don't absolutely need to store personal data, DON'T. Just don't. Store something else. Or just drop the data into /dev/null. Saying that you'll delete soon the personal-data-you-don't-need isn't sufficient.

And really, if this is the way GDPR compliance is going to go, "muh security" is quickly going to gain the reputation as the bullshit reason shady people trot out who want to disobey the law. People who actually care about security should push back on that strongly.

Over the thumb: you can use it for things were you need PI for your service to work, it is normal, that you request address if you operate the online shop, you can't deliver the goods without it, while analytics is something users don't need and is not required for your service to operate.

I was just writting complaint letter to my phone/isp company where they showelled marketing, questionars, threat assesment (not IT security, customer assessment) analytics and few other fishy things into legitimate interest, without even providing information about which data they use and why exactly. Legitimate interest is a really nasty thing and it is hard to get it right, it is not free "get out of jail" card.

You are aware that there is a time and monetary cost to comply for those with legitimate data collection purposes, right?

Consider adventured's sibling post - it quite astutely points out that GDPR discussions are much more vitriolic than you'd expect for discussions of the minutiae of data handling. People who say that GDPR compliance is hard are being attacked on a personal level. He explains it as 'emotional investment' in GDPR but I don't think that's a good explanation; the people arguing most strongly for it are also those saying it's not much work, so that seems backwards. You'd expect people who put in the most effort to be most emotionally invested in it.

There's a much better explanation available: your view on GDPR is a direct consequence of your assumptions about human nature. If you believe in the existence of benign and enlightened technocrats then GDPR seems like excellent progress towards building a better world - it's extreme vagueness and severe penalties are exactly what's needed to foster obedience to technocratic elites. People who complain about this are just being unnecessarily awkward ... just be reasonable after all, and you'll be fine! The EU are reasonable so if you're reasonable too, you have nothing to fear! From this perspective, anyone who objects to GDPR or actually decides compliance is impossible must - almost by definition - be being unreasonable. What are they hiding? Why can't they just get on board; the only answer available is that they have flawed characters and any points they make about gray-area debatable things like cost:benefit ratios must be some sort of obfuscation.

If on the other hand you believe the whole idea of wise and beneficent bureaucrats is naive, then GDPR looks like a hell of a lot like a power grab by the very sort of people who shouldn't be able to grab power. Vagueness is of deep concern because it's in the shadows of vagueness that abuse can be found, and when a law is nothing but vagueness, it even makes sense to question to motives of those who created it - that's a problem because lots of self-styled Europeans have bought into the EU's utopian rhetoric and can't separate criticism of the EU from criticism of themselves and their desired future.

There's no real scientific way to prove whose assumptions about human nature are right. The USSR was a rare example of a real-life experiment in who was right and for a long time it proved the American style, conservative, small weak government is better mentality to have superior results. But that was decades ago and many have forgotten or weren't alive back then, so now rule by technocratic dictatorship seems attractive again.

As a consequence GDPR discussions will always have the same flavour as Clinton v Trump debates, or Brexit debates, or whether to restrict spending on political campaigning. They are ultimately about the same issues.

There is no GDPR debate or fight: it's done, it was done six years ago, and the only people pushing back are American companies who are unhappy that Europeans don't want their data hoovered up by corporations they have no control or oversight of, for who-knows-what purpose.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that parent example is not US-specific at all and is applicable to just about any country where there are people that learn toward different beliefs (that "direct consequence of your assumptions about human nature" part of the post)

The assumptions may be wrong, but that was generally constructive.

Partly because there is a much broader political spectrum -- Democrats in the US roughly line up with, for example, the Conservatives in the UK or the CDU in Germany -- but also because it's just a different set of issues and preoccupations.

I do think it's fair to say that within the EU there is a general consensus about the importance of data privacy, and I also don't detect any resistance to the GDPR in general, or any question that it should be repealed. (That was partly sealed by the revelation of US spying on Europeans a few years ago, which hasn't been forgotten.)

Second, if I'm honest, I find the whole "assumptions about human nature" is a bunch of hokum and quite the opposite of constructive. Nothing about GDPR has to do with "obedience to technocratic elites", and is in fact about rejecting the ability of institutions which are not democratically accountable to gather personal data and monitor people, or make decisions that affect their daily lives, without their informed knowledge and consent.

GDPR is not a "power grab" (hah!), it's about distributing the power that comes from control of information more evenly. The EU has a lot of flaws, but this is one of the most democratic and equalizing bits of regulation that they've produced, and frankly the concessions it makes to large companies are huge.

I don't accept the argument that to be in favor of this I must be in favor of USSR-style totalitarianism. If anything, the inefficient planned economy of VC-funded startups, with their cults of personality around founders, that want to collect data and influence populations with impunity are the petty dictators of the 21st century. Personal rights should trump the rights of corporations, and I am deeply suspicious of people who would equate the two.

But that's all making a mountain out of a molehill: most of what GDPR does is harmonize existing regulation across the EU to make it easier for companies within and outside of Europe to do business here, adds enforcement teeth to the regulatory agencies and harmonizes the penalties, and sets out in actually rather specific detail what is required to be compliant, while giving everyone years to implement this regulation.

If people don't want to comply with GDPR and just block all EU users, then that will make the internet a nicer place for us, so by all means go ahead!

Nothing about GDPR has to do with "obedience to technocratic elites"

No? I think you missed by points then.

The GDPR was created, is enforced by and serves the interests of regulators. It specifies so little it is essentially a direct grant of power to those people - they can do whatever they want within its framework and that framework allows nearly anything.

As for 'technocratic elites', did you see political parties campaigning on this issue? I sure as heck did not. Right now the hot topics in European politics are immigration, terrorism and economic growth. Not data protection.

is in fact about rejecting the ability of institutions which are not democratically accountable to gather personal data and monitor people

Of course companies are democratically accountable - outside of monoplies (rare), you can just not trade with them if you don't like their data handling practices.

This is also why in all cases you'll see the GDPR supporters go after the character of the site/service owner (including always questioning their motives to muddy the waters). It's an attempt to short-circuit any reasoned debate, to destroy the credibility of the opponent. This has happened numerous times on HN in the last month or two.

Even if you had a business that was whiter than white in terms of compliance with previous data protection laws and had perfect documentation of all its data collection and processing activities, it would surely cost far more than that just for the time to write some basic notes on the extra things you now have to tell data subjects and/or your regulator, get them reviewed by a lawyer, incorporate them into the relevant policies, and send notifications to anyone affected about your updated privacy policy.

What about your salary?

Your risk in GDPR is similar to your risk in IP law. If you don't comply with the law and someone calls you on it, you might have legal proceedings against you. In most cases it's pretty obvious if you are compliant with the law (Well, to be fair, it's completely unobvious if you are going to get randomly sued for patent infringement, but I digress...) If you are have a very complex situation, then maybe it is worth some legal advice, but it's pretty freaking obvious if you need the data you have collected in order to fulfil the contract or not.

Anybody that tries to sell you one is full of it.

You claim to know a lot about the GDPR, I’m not sure my business is compliant. Can you take a look and tell me?

What’s that called if not an audit?

No lawyer or accountant has ever given me anything that I couldn't have come up with myself, with sufficient study. I still paid them, because the law is very complex and I have other things to do with my time. That's how any country with a nontrivial legal system works.

You seem to have great confidence that you understand how the GDPR will be enforced. I'd suggest that:

1. Not everyone knows as much about EU law as you do. This is especially true for people who don't live in the EU.

2. You might be wrong. Maybe GDPR compliance really is dead simple, and the lawyers who keep answering "it depends" are just cheating their clients; but from my experience in complying with similarly complex regulations, I wouldn't bet 20M EUR that's the case.

I've been in continuous operation with my businesses since 1986 and I guarantee you that I've been compliant with the laws as much as I'm aware of them. The major transgressions involving business assets were parking tickets, speeding tickets (< 10 km/h excess by an employee of the company in a company vehicle). Other than that not so much as a copied piece of software. Oh, and we were once late with a tax filing because the bookkeeper messed up, they absorbed the fine.

Running a small business in a way that is compliant with the law is stupidly easy: know the law.

Now, there is one thing that I did that I know full well was against the law and that came about as a result of me getting very angry about some stuff that happened to a friend of mine. In that particular case I saw my actions as akin to civil disobedience. In the end it got superseded by others doing the same thing much better and at a much larger scale but I would have fully accepted the consequence of breaking the law in that case. But it would have been a conscious decision to break the law.

Incidentally: not knowing you are breaking a law is no excuse for breaking the law, ignorance is not a valid defense.

You're out of touch.

Compliance just isn't as simple as you think it is no matter how much you double down in these comments. Laws aren't black and white. Do you not use an accountant, either?

Frankly, your advice is terrible.

But that's just trying to stretch what we are discussing here: that it is possible to comply with the law in principle. That some overzealous prosecutor with a grudge could nail you might happen - in Russia, maybe even the USA. But frankly where I live I have not yet seen a case like that. We probably have them but not frequently enough to make the news and in general the legal system here works quite well.

Or for that matter, someone running a social platform that allows socially "undesirable" speech, speech that is openly critical of government policy, or speech that exposes the wrongdoing of powerful people.

For about 20 years, yes.

And I’m saying that’s bullshit. You’re breaking laws left and right, but you just don’t get caught because enforcement of those laws is so inconsistent. And the GDPR is so much worse; I’m sure you’re not compliant with GDPR given how vague and over-reaching the law is, but you’re probably mostly compliant and you’re too small for anyone to care.

Well, you know my business better than I do I guess.

> And the GDPR is so much worse; I’m sure you’re not compliant with GDPR given how vague and over-reaching the law is, but you’re probably mostly compliant and you’re too small for anyone to care.

And my business is about 100x the size of the one of the person writing the article. And I'm not worried. So I see the article writer as someone who uses the opportunity to make a whole bunch of fuss over something that (1) most likely would never impact him and (2) has indicated clearly that despite his opening sentence he probably doesn't give a damn about his users privacy.

So as far as I can see the law is working as intended.

You might be from Europe and to you it may just seem sensible but 1-5 person companies often have to make tradeoffs like this. It is not right to say just comply with the law - it is so easy! The company, here, has decided that the cost is too high and that they are out.

I also have to be compliant with US laws if I deal with US citizens. What's the difference?

> You might be from Europe and to you it may just seem sensible but 1-5 person companies often have to make tradeoffs like this.

Not the ones that want to stay in business.

> It is not right to say just comply with the law - it is so easy!

But it is easy, he's just making it seem as though it isn't. There is so much factually wrong in that blog post that if that's the level of thinking that goes into the decision making then there most likely are other issues.

> The company, here, has decided that the cost is too high and that they are out.

Probably good riddance. But for all the wrong reasons.

OP can just rely on "legitimate interests", and describe the data they're processing and why.

Also you are responsible for downstream guarantees of legitimate interest.

He is right that open P2P protocols like XMPP, such as NNTP, IRC, bitcoin, ethereum, etc are not handled clearly.

It is a headache for him I can sympathize.

Are you expecting GDPR (or any law for that matter) to define an exhaustive list of every definition, that holds true now as well as for the future? Have a rethink about that statement...

Just as companies need to be specific about how they use data now the legal-judicial system needs to be specific about what it means and intends.

It is a double standard because the legislators are not interested in the commercial impact.

It's easier just to say "this tool blocks Europeans" and problem avoided.

All the laws, worldwide?

Are you in compliance with anti-blasphemy laws? Laws that forbid insulting the monarch? The tax regime of every country in the world?

The creator of Monal has decided the easiest way to be compliant with another country's laws is simply not to do business there, and I think you're underestimating the difficulty of the alternative (trying to comply with every country's laws).

And as for the 'don't insult the monarch' law, we have that law here in NL and I purposefully broke it as a private individual to make a point.

The tax regime of every country in the world has no impact on me, I reside in NL, my businesses are here as well. But when I had several businesses in Canada and one in the USA I complied with the tax laws there too.

> The creator of Monal has decided the easiest way to be compliant with another country's laws is simply not to do business there, and I think you're underestimating the difficulty of the alternative (trying to comply with every country's laws).

He's taking the easy way out because there never was a real business behind this. This is my conclusion because he feels that his holidays are more important than the rights of his users.

Why should the creator of free software spend their own money to support users in a region that imposes extra regulations?

If I create free software that concretely and demonstrably aids in worldwide human trafficking and has negligible utility elsewhere, would you still consider my refusal to comply with regulation reasonable because my software was free?

How free the software is not a determining factor, either morally or legally, in determining whether or not the GDPR is or should be applicable.

You can hardly complain that someone who gave you something for free wasn't willing to spend their time or money to comply with additional demands.

But why would someone who is literally giving something away accept that liability, or even any perceived risk of liability, if they have an easier option?

There are professionals who spend their entire careers just "knowing" very specific parts of the law, and who are still frequently found to have misinterpreted it when tested in court.

Is doing your company's annual financial returns also stupidly easy, because you just have to know accountancy?

What about security? Just write all the software you use yourself based on your expert knowledge of cracking and cryptography?

Incidentally: not knowing you are breaking a law is no excuse for breaking the law, ignorance is not a valid defense.

This is possibly the greatest conceit in the history of legal systems. No human being in any Western nation could even read every word of law that applies to them in an entire lifetime, never mind fully understand the implications and the motivations behind those words that might be relevant to interpretation. Ignorance may not be a legal defence, but not being magically aware of the sum of all human knowledge about every legal system that you interact with is certainly a reasonable excuse for doing something illegal but otherwise apparently ethical and sensible.

This is just ridiculous, patently false and making an excuse for reckless behaviour. Only specific laws apply to your business domain and if you aren't complying with them then you are wilfully breaking the law and putting your customers and the general public at risk.

Own a cafe ? You should be cooking in a safe manner. Sell a car ? It shouldn't kill people. Run a website ? Make sure your user's privacy is respected.

Almost no restaurants score a perfect 100% during food inspections.

Many regulations understand that real life works on a gradient. That is why cars have varying safety standards that they have to meet based on their size and class, and why consumers can pay more for cars with a higher safety rating.