European (generalizing) models seem to have the problem that they generalize restrictions while specifying permissions.
E.g. 'Thou shalt not store & use personal data'
Overridden by 'Thou may store and use personal data, in a banking context, with clear user permission presented in an interactive graphical format, for user requests pertaining to tax information'
DENY ALL + PERMIT {SITUATION} is not a recipe for innovation.
Versus I'd say the US model is PERMIT ALL + DENY {SITUATION}.
And India's model appears to be PERMIT ALL (in theory) + ARBITRARY BUREAUCRATIC DENY (in practice).
Whereas Thompson's point seems to be that national champions effectively simplify this into the US model, albeit with a chokepoint / revenue siphon. Perhaps South Korea as a similar example?
E.g. 'Thou shalt not store & use personal data'
Overridden by 'Thou may store and use personal data, in a banking context, with clear user permission presented in an interactive graphical format, for user requests pertaining to tax information'
DENY ALL + PERMIT {SITUATION} is not a recipe for innovation.
Versus I'd say the US model is PERMIT ALL + DENY {SITUATION}.
And India's model appears to be PERMIT ALL (in theory) + ARBITRARY BUREAUCRATIC DENY (in practice).
Whereas Thompson's point seems to be that national champions effectively simplify this into the US model, albeit with a chokepoint / revenue siphon. Perhaps South Korea as a similar example?