Timeline for Is there an EU regulation mandating companies' IT equipment to be changed every three months?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2020 at 22:54 | comment | added | user8913 | I was simply indirectly stating how difficult it may be, depending on the situation, for the poster to provide proof to back this negative. | |
| Apr 10, 2020 at 22:54 | comment | added | user8913 | I didn't mean that comment to be a practical how-to guide. I grew up around an attorney, and I am well aware of things like legal precedence and the impact that a judicial decision has on the law. That was not the point of my comment, and this overreactive arguing is not contributing to the site. | |
| Apr 10, 2020 at 17:22 | comment | added | feetwet♦ | @Panzercrisis – It's even harder than that, as noted here. The problem with questions that require proving a negative was also discussed in meta. | |
| Apr 9, 2020 at 22:10 | comment | added | JBentley | @Panzercrisis That's not the only option. You could seek a court judgement. Courts interpret the law and their word is final (barring only appeal to a higher court or a subsequent change in the law). Technically your solution wouldn't even result in "proof" because you can't be sure you didn't misunderstand some provision. Only a court can give you that certainty. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 18:37 | comment | added | user8913 | If you want proof that this answer is correct, you have essentially one option: Look through all the laws of the EU, including ones that seem unrelated, just to be sure. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 18:30 | comment | added | Lag | @NotThatGuy Other answers have speculated about months meaning years and common company policies with regard to equipment replacement, accounting procedures, vendor support agreements, laptop battery life and PCISS - I'm surprised no-one has mentioned portable appliance testing. I've answered the question asked. And frankly the claim doesn't withstand the scrutiny of considering the consequences if this rule were real. Nor does 2 or 4 months. Some claims are 'not even wrong'. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 13:39 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | What about EU regulation to change equipment every 2 months, or every 4 months, or more or less often? Or anything closely related or that might've been mistaken for this (that may or may not part of the EU regulation)? This belief had to come from somewhere. This answers is way too specific. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 13:02 | comment | added | JBentley | @Chronocidal That's not generally how legislation works. If lawmakers had to cross-reference every law that came before, the job would become impossible. Instead they will often use phrases like "unless stated otherwise in any other enactment or rule of law" or simply rely on implicit repeal. So finding a contradictory law doesn't prove that the other law doesn't also exist. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 11:07 | vote | accept | Theodore Tsirpanis | ||
| Apr 8, 2020 at 8:08 | comment | added | Chronocidal | @sharur You might be able to find either a contradictory law, or one that wouldn't exist if this one did (i.e. if you have to test IT equipment for electrical safety every 12 months, then you clearly can't be replacing it after just 3!) | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 4:12 | comment | added | David Z | @sharur I suppose it would be helpful (although, I agree, not necessary) to show a few places where one might look to find this regulation if it existed. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 23:50 | comment | added | David Tonhofer | I can confirm that I have seen 10+ years old equipment held together by duck tape, even some mainframes that survived Y2K. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 19:54 | comment | added | sharur | I would normally ask for a citation, but its very hard to prove a negative... | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 19:50 | history | answered | Lag | CC BY-SA 4.0 |