Ah, you're saying it matters during design. Sure. I am talking about after passed, the intent matters very little. Too often on the GDPR and other legislation in effect, the intent is used to judge effectiveness which is invalid. When a law on the books is not working right, what it was trying to do is not an argument in favor of it working right.
But since its enforcement can be completely contrary to the intent, intent only matters to the enforcers if they want it to matter. The actual enforcement, whether intended or not, is what really matters.
> But since its enforcement can be completely contrary to the intent, intent only matters to the enforcers if they want it to matter.
Right, and my argument is that with legislation intended to serve the people, (GDPR), enforcement is likely to be much closer in line with the intent than say Article 13, which is the other way around, (serving corporations, not people).
Enforcers are newer as aggressive when protecting individuals as they are when protecting corporate interests. Apart from corruption, this is simply because of the leverage corporations have that individuals lack, (control of the flow of capital).
