Replace marijuana with "personal data" and imagine it is about websites with visitors within EU. If they're not storing, processing and/or transmitting personal data, there is no compliance requirements (from GDPR at least).
This is a good analogy. By making the marijuana illegal, you also implicitly widen search powers. You can’t arrest someone you think smells like weed if weed is legal. (Or answer a neighbor’s complaint that they suspect they’re growing weed.)
Same idea. If you say you aren’t storing personal data and I say you are, someone’s got the authority to check. Those checks and confirmations cost time and money. With a complain-investigate set-up like GDPR (and American securities law), the burden is on the respondent.
Nope, you don't. Those are two different things.
There are plenty of things that are made illegal without giving the government the power to search for them.
> You can’t arrest someone you think smells like weed if weed is legal.
You can't arrest someone by smelling like weed in any democracy where it's illegal either.
> You can't arrest someone by smelling like weed in any democracy where it's illegal either.
isn't true. Sweden is super strict on usage and if even a "normal" person and/or neighbour would smell weed from you or your place they'd definitely call the cops on you. If a cop smelled weed on you in public you'd get arrested immediately no doubt.
Yet, most people consider Sweden a democracy :)
If some random policeman can look at you, decide to arrest you with no real evidence, and it's all legal, that a huge Human Rights violation right there.
How does a judge deal with this? Do they rush to smell the culprit too?