Might be my European outlook, but consumer law has been stupidly effective at curbing abuses from companies here and was much more effective than playing the technology race USA is trying to fight. There's always a next side-step, the next abuse a company can invent - and you keep trying to push the responsibility of avoiding it to users (by adding more and more onerous technology) instead of punishing the abusers.
Ask yourself how long have those consumer laws been in effect. Has this technology problem progressed during that time (increased or decreased). Have the fines against the large tech companies actually been collected and were they sufficient to curb that behavior or are they still being administrated or adjudicated (decades later)? Have the large tech companies provided all of the information they collect for review (including the intermediates they generate from processing for derivation internally, in a way that discloses all the ways they use it), or did they only provide a plausible alternative, or just the base information collected without explanation. Do you have a way to prove its the former and not the latter?
I'm sure consumer law has been effective at eliminating the provable abuses domestically. If they were effective internationally, why would the problem be progressing to ever more complicated ways of ubiquitous tracking (which are against that law), or even domestically for those multinationals.
Its business as usual and these people know centralized power structures suffer structurally from corruption and malign influence, and as a market force they exploit that.
There's enough money in people's futures that no fine will actually solve the issue because fraud gets baked into the process. Privacy, communication, and agency are what largely compose people's future.
Due process from corporate sovereignty guarantees they can draw it out as long as they need to while continuing to make money off their actions, both increasing costs to regulatory (as a resource drain), and increasing revenue.
The real cost is borne on either the individual or on the public, and corporations have incentive to lie in ways that are difficult or impossible to prove. A lie of omission, is a lie.
In my opinion, for certain critical societal protections, its necessary to have a guilty by default, for 'people' whose only possible motive is profit incentive. The corporations or the firm are considered people in most locales, but they only adjust behavior based on profit or future profit (through monopoly).
Placing the burden of proof on the company to prove they are complying, instead of compliant with good faith protections by default, would eliminate most benefits they might receive from deceit, or lying through omission.
Am I correct?
Granted, I didn't go directly to the regulatory site because who can sit down and analyze multiple legalese documents that have thousands of pages with crossreferencing requirements.
- living in the UK, I barely ever receive spam calls or messages. I can be reasonably sure that companies don't sell my contacts to third parties, I can withdraw my consent to marketing communications and spam will stop, I did it multiple times. My American friends seem to have way more problems with that, to the extent of buying burner phones to buy insurance. Considering that the tech is exactly the same across the pond, the difference is entirely in the legislation and consumer protection.
- cars became much cleaner and more efficient over the last three decades thanks to the ever ratcheting Euro standards. I only need an old car passing by to be reminded of that, you can just smell the difference.
- my broadband connection has a minimum average speed guaranteed by law, which protects me from the line being oversubscribed. This actually works, and a friend of mine got a sizeable compensation for a period when they didn't get the full speed.
So consumer laws work, and saying that enforcement can't be done is a bit of a post-hoc rationalisation. It is true that GDPR can and should be enforced harsher, but it's just one example in a long and successful history of consumer protections.
As for cars, how do we know that's true. There was Dieselgate, but from what I've heard they only got them because of whistleblowers.
Many VOCs which these laws are designed to reduce are odorless. The ones are visible are larger particle size and generally less of an issue from an environmental perspective from most accounts.
Finally, you can see it numbers: https://www.asm-autos.co.uk/workspace/images/yearly-co2-emis...
There is no fundamental reason why all those changes had to happen, it wasn't the market driving them. It was the regulation.
How did the EU cookie laws and GDPR solved this problem? It's as widespread as before, except that now you are annoyed by prompts too.
We need better regulation to temper capitalism.
You've misused that term.
We need limits to prevent capitalism from doing its worst.
It's only fair that we all live and work with the same limits.
This is the type of regulation that is necessary.