That's not exactly a new insight, Richelieu beat you to that one a couple of centuries ago.

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.

Have you been running a socially controversial business? That's where the specifics of the law start to really matter. The butcher, baker and candlestick maker have little to fear from the most badly drafted of laws; it's the person running a skate park or gay bar in a small town who tends to be on the sharp end.

> it's the person running a skate park or gay bar in a small town who tends to be on the sharp end

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.

> Have you been running a socially controversial business?

For about 20 years, yes.

Not the point. You’re making the case that you’re always fully compliant with all laws and have been for 30 years, because it’s just so damn effortless. It’s almost more work to NOT be compliant!!

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.

> You’re breaking laws left and right, but you just don’t get caught because enforcement of those laws is so inconsistent.

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.