[hbrav]

This is extremely disappointing. The insurer in question has a very good reputation within the dive community for acting in good faith and for providing medical information free of charge to non-members.

This sounds like a cultural mismatch with their lawyers. Which is ironic, since the lawyers in question probably thought of themselves as being risk-averse and doing everything possible to protect the organisation's reputation.

[dekhn]

I find often that conversations between lawyers and engineers are just two very different minded people talking past each other. I'm an engineer, and once I spent more time understanding lawyers, what they do, and how they do it, my ability to get them to do something increased tremendously. It's like programming in an extremely quirky programming language running on a very broken system that requires a ton of money to stay up.

[smcin]

Could you post on HN on that? Would be worth reading.

And are you only talking about cybersecurity disclosure, liability, patent applications... And the scenario when you're both working for the same party, or opposing parties?

[BlueGreenMagick]

I'm curious to hear your take on the situation in the article.

Based on your experience, do you think there are specific ways the author could have communicated differently to elicit a better response from the lawyers?

[lucb1e]

> This sounds like a cultural mismatch with their lawyers.

Note that the post never mentions lawyers, only the title. It sounds to me like chatgpt came up with two dozen titles and OP thought this was the most dramatic one. In the post, they mention it was a data protection officer who replied. This person has the user's interests as their goal and works for the organization only insofar as that they handle GDPR-related matters, including complaints. If I'm reading it right, they're supposed to be somewhat impartial per recital 97 of the GDPR: "data protection officers [...] should be in a position to perform their duties and tasks in an independent manner"