3 ms·

The Internet itself makes world legal convergence a necessity. Disagree. I reject your premise, and the false dilemma it leads to. The actual answer is the s

The Internet itself makes world legal convergence a necessity. Disagree. I reject your premise, and the false dilemma it leads to. The actual answer is the same as as the answer for international travel, which doesn’t necessitate global legal convergence: if you go to another country, you’re bound by their laws. If you come to America and something happens to you here that’s not illegal here but is in the EU, or you do something here that’s illegal here but not in the EU, you may feel your rights have been violated, but it doesn’t matter. You’re held responsible for the actions you take within a jurisdiction, whether you’re a guest there or not. And by contrast, that jurisdiction isn’t responsible for enforcing your home country’s laws just because you came. It’s the same with the web: if you want better protection for your data than the US provides: do not send your data to the US. Obviously companies in the EU should comply with EU law, but the GDPR asserts that a citizen can expand the EU jurisdiction globally by sending a request to a company anywhere in the world, and then demanding that the request be handled according to EU law under penalty of fines. Ludicrous, and I seriously doubt that most countries are going to play ball. If you seriously think that the US government is going to let the EU fine some US-based business without any EU presence millions of dollars because Brussels passed some law, you’re headed for disappointment.

zelon88 9y ago
> if you want better protection for your data than the US provides: do not send your data to the US. You don't have a choice. A citizen of Brussels who doesn't have a Facebook account could be surfing a website that Facebook doesn't own and Facebook will still be tracking and recording that person's activity without consent. So the situation essentially becomes similar to a phishing scammer in India making fraudulant phone calls to U.S. Citizens pretending to be the IRS. Did that person break U.S. law? They sure did. Did they break Indian law? Maybe not. Should they be extradited to the U.S. to face our jurisdiction? Of course, because they were taking advantage of their geographic location to undermine our jurisdiction. It wouldn't be that hard for a global company worth hundreds of billions of dollars to implement some sort of geo-fence that properly identifies EU citizens and complies with local laws on a local level. Facebook wrote their own hard drive firmware for their data centers. Why do we care about the feasibility or financial repercussions of asking Facebook to comply with laws to protect actual people?
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Should they be extradited to the U.S. to face our jurisdiction? I don’t think so. I don’t want India to have the power to extradite me if I send an email to a someone in India that they deem blasphemy or destabilizing or whatever. You’re talking about clearcut fraud, which is more sympathetic but the underlying legal precedent is what terrifies me. It is a violation of human rights to subject people to laws that they have no democratic say in. Also, in your example about Facebook, you do have a choice. Leaving aside that they’re global and have an EU presence and should thus be complying, if Facebook was US-based only, you are sending a request to their servers. You’re responsible. Now, maybe the site in question also bears some culpability for what their partners do with their customers’ data, but I don’t see how Facebook is responsible for every law and jurisdiction for where those requests originate. If you don’t want Facebook to have your data, don’t send it to them! Blocking those requests is incredibly trivial, and the onus should be on you the sender, not the receiver.
pjc50 9y ago
> if you want better protection for your data than the US provides: do not send your data to the US Should EU companies be allowed to send my data to the US, then? > If you seriously think that the US government is going to let the EU fine some US-based business without any EU presence millions of dollars because Brussels passed some law, you’re headed for disappointment. The US shut down a lot of non-US poker businesses, including PokerStars in the Isle of Man. And sent the FBI to New Zealand to seize Kim "dotcom". If a US based business becomes a sufficiently big problem for EU privacy, it's going to get fined, and we're going to find out whether the EU-US cooperation is bidirectional.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Should EU companies be allowed to send my data to the US, then? Of course not. Businesses should be bound by the laws of their jurisdictions. And you won’t catch me defending the US throwing its weight around to violate the sovereignty of other nations either. It’s wrong for us to do it too.

zelon88 9y ago

> if you want better protection for your data than the US provides: do not send your data to the US. You don't have a choice. A citizen of Brussels who doesn't have a Facebook account could be surfing a website that Facebook doesn't own and Facebook will still be tracking and recording that person's activity without consent. So the situation essentially becomes similar to a phishing scammer in India making fraudulant phone calls to U.S. Citizens pretending to be the IRS. Did that person break U.S. law? They sure did. Did they break Indian law? Maybe not. Should they be extradited to the U.S. to face our jurisdiction? Of course, because they were taking advantage of their geographic location to undermine our jurisdiction. It wouldn't be that hard for a global company worth hundreds of billions of dollars to implement some sort of geo-fence that properly identifies EU citizens and complies with local laws on a local level. Facebook wrote their own hard drive firmware for their data centers. Why do we care about the feasibility or financial repercussions of asking Facebook to comply with laws to protect actual people?

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Should they be extradited to the U.S. to face our jurisdiction? I don’t think so. I don’t want India to have the power to extradite me if I send an email to a someone in India that they deem blasphemy or destabilizing or whatever. You’re talking about clearcut fraud, which is more sympathetic but the underlying legal precedent is what terrifies me. It is a violation of human rights to subject people to laws that they have no democratic say in. Also, in your example about Facebook, you do have a choice. Leaving aside that they’re global and have an EU presence and should thus be complying, if Facebook was US-based only, you are sending a request to their servers. You’re responsible. Now, maybe the site in question also bears some culpability for what their partners do with their customers’ data, but I don’t see how Facebook is responsible for every law and jurisdiction for where those requests originate. If you don’t want Facebook to have your data, don’t send it to them! Blocking those requests is incredibly trivial, and the onus should be on you the sender, not the receiver.

pjc50 9y ago

> if you want better protection for your data than the US provides: do not send your data to the US Should EU companies be allowed to send my data to the US, then? > If you seriously think that the US government is going to let the EU fine some US-based business without any EU presence millions of dollars because Brussels passed some law, you’re headed for disappointment. The US shut down a lot of non-US poker businesses, including PokerStars in the Isle of Man. And sent the FBI to New Zealand to seize Kim "dotcom". If a US based business becomes a sufficiently big problem for EU privacy, it's going to get fined, and we're going to find out whether the EU-US cooperation is bidirectional.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Should EU companies be allowed to send my data to the US, then? Of course not. Businesses should be bound by the laws of their jurisdictions. And you won’t catch me defending the US throwing its weight around to violate the sovereignty of other nations either. It’s wrong for us to do it too.