Hacker News Reader

Comment by planede | Hacker News Reader

Response from BSI (British national standardization body): https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/insights-and-media/insights/b...

And an article that feels is mostly biased to paint it as a negative: https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2024/3/...

I didn't find any other recent publication about it. I first read the response from BSI.

View on HN

It seems to me the current structure of ISO being a private body is fundamentally untenable. Obviously it costs money to develop standards and regulations, but the budget should come from governments paying to develop standards they want. I don't think we benefit from a competitive landscape today in the private standards industry. For the most part, it seems like there's effectively one body that produces them for a continent anyway (ANSI for NA, ISO for EU/ROW). Keep the competition in the testing/certification space.

I think most ISO standards aren't legally mandated, which would be the distinction here.

I think it's fair to require free access to laws, or parts thereof.

Can this be generalized to:

The privatization and consequent monetization - in any way, manner, or form - of publicly-mandated requirements is.. evil^H^H^H^H vigorously contrary to the pubic interest.

Restated: Any law (and consequent mandate) is a public law, and any less-than-public variant is bogus, and subject to punishment-free leaks.

BSI answer is through clinched teeth it seems

Reply on news.ycombinator.com