9 ms·

>Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and

>Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and can do whatever they want without resorting to any sort of internal consistency. That's not really relevant to the parent's observation that Facebook is likely arguing that they're being singled out in an environment where their practices are so rampant as to be standard. >But heaven forbid governments hold a dominant corporation accountable in the public interest. "accountable to the public interest" is an incredibly disingenuous way to say "enforce their laws". The difference matters in this context because the counter argument would be "why is the law being enforced predominantly against a handful of American companies instead of the industry at large?"

ludston 9y ago
This law has to be enforced somewhere first. Either it is enforced against Facebook first, and Facebook complains "Why don't all of the the small fries have to do it yet" and if it is enforced against the small fries, they will say, "Why doesn't Facebook have to do it yet"? And the answer is, the justice department will probably enforce the law in the way that the expect to have the best effect for themselves. It is not necessary to wait until you are sued before you become legally compliant?
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  > "This law has to be enforced somewhere first." Still, the lawsuits should be simultaneously served to all companies. Preferably with a courtesy heads up.
  - elborro 9y ago
    The DPR has been implemented since 1998. GDPR had been announced 2012, implemented fully in 2016. Active enforcement will start May 2018 with again a temporary period to allow companies to correct. Refusal to comply after that can result in penalties up to a maximum of 4% of the companies global revenue. How much courtesy lead time does a company actually need to comply?
    - wiz21c 9y ago
      Especially when such company is pushing legions of developers reduce their "time to market". "You have 20 seconds to comply" says the robocop :-)
      - gear54rus 9y ago
        Exactly, someone has to be Kinney, and it better be someone already too big for our own good.
    - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
      Courtesy heads up that they will actually enforce the law. Lawbooks are full of laws that are never enforced.
  - consp 9y ago
    That's not how the law works in most European countries. Class actions don't exist, so the usual strategy is to sue the biggest company or greatest offender, since that results most likely in the best defence or the best case. The summary of the court of the case, if ruled in favor of the one suing or in favor of the public interest, will be used to prosecute all other offenders if they do not comply. If the defense wins, it can be used by others as a defense. While not 'fair' it works as the smaller fish will probably go bottoms up trying to mount a proper defense against larger governmental or lobbying groups which results in a no-win scenario for all: The company is dead and there is still no ruling, or a ruling lacking proper defense.
  - simion314 9y ago
    What, if you get screwed by Google do you ue all the companies or only Google? Or say Intel users that are now sewing on the meltdown bug should they get involved in AMD too from some feeling of solidarity? In this case someone did something illegal and someone else complained to the justice, should they first find all (I hope you understand what all means, aka don't forget anybody) and try to do what? start 1000 processes in justice? It makes sense to start with the bigger criminals, if the court decides favorably then you continue to the next ones.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    1. Why should their be a "courtesy heads up"? Most of these defendants know they're breaking the law. The regulatory agencies have made their interpretations of the statutes known. 2. Do you realize how much manpower it would take to require that all separate cases be tried at once? You might as well just come out and say you don't want any cases to be tried at all, as that would be the outcome.
- prostoalex 9y ago
  That’s not typically how things usually work. When a government agency (think IRS or FAA) decides on a specific interpretation of a law, rule or regulation, they don’t go after a random guy to prosecute. They publish an opinion, a guideline, or interpretation and a compliance deadline. The industry is given a choice to comply or present an alternative interpretation (through courts, lobbyists or legislative representatives). It’s one thing if one company out of a hundred doesn’t comply, and somewhat different when the standard industry practice goes against new interpretation. Selective encorcement is more typical of countries with weak judicial systems and endemic corruption, where “friends” of the current government get compassionate understanding, but everybody else is subject to the strict rule of the law.
  - norlys 9y ago
    Do you even know your checks and balances? This is not about government, it's about court. Facebook only has to pay because individuals (or in that case, a privacy organisation) decided to sue Facebook
  - eitland 9y ago
    Well, it's not that they haven't been talking publicly for years that they are going to do something. And I guess Facebook and others have been trying to lobby it away for years already.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Europe hews to somewhat different legal and administrative philosophies from the US, and I don't think the EU is any more corrupt than the US, arguably less so. This subject is discussed very well in a favorite little book, Adversarial Legalism by Robert Kagan.
    - BjoernKW 9y ago
      This has nothing to with different legal systems or administrative philosophies but is all about politics. Europe, Germany and France in particular, has a strong history of state involvement in large corporations. I suppose you could call that an administrative philosophy. To me it sounds like another form of corruption.
IncRnd 9y ago
> The difference matters in this context because the counter argument would be "why is the law being enforced predominantly against a handful of American companies instead of the industry at large?" That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction. Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws?
- EggsOnToast 9y ago
  >That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction. You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism. > Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws? I'm insinuating that if someone wanted to defend Facebook's position one avenue would be to argue that the law is being selectively enforced. Obviously this isn't a comprehensive argument but it's an easy platform to jump in other directions from.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    > You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism. I doubt a statement expressing dissatisfaction is a valid legal argument responding to a legal ruling. Clearly the term argument in this context is for a legal argument not a colloquial use of the term, since a legal appeal is what is being discussed. When people get traffic tickets, the judge won't let them off for saying, "But, your honor, the police officer didn't pull over any of the other speeders around me."
    - EggsOnToast 9y ago
      I was using the term "argument" in the more broadly applicable but also literal sense of the word. Your explanation is correct but you've either misunderstood what I was saying or I've misread your reply.
goblins 9y ago
Weren't these civil actions taken by private citizens/rights group? The courts are just agreeing with these citizens/rights group. It's not like an EU agency is targeting Facebook unfairly. Personally I can only see this as a good thing. As a non-user I don't want Facebook tracking me. Same as I don't want tracked by any other company.
seszett 9y ago
> why is the law being enforced predominantly against a handful of American companies instead of the industry at large? Because the largest companies that European citizens are using and that breaking the law are American. There is no point in targetting first the Chinese and Russian companies doing the same tracking, as few European citizens are affected. And as far as I know, there is zero European company doing the same thing on such a level.
snvzz 9y ago
Because Facebook is doing it at scale.

ludston 9y ago

This law has to be enforced somewhere first. Either it is enforced against Facebook first, and Facebook complains "Why don't all of the the small fries have to do it yet" and if it is enforced against the small fries, they will say, "Why doesn't Facebook have to do it yet"? And the answer is, the justice department will probably enforce the law in the way that the expect to have the best effect for themselves. It is not necessary to wait until you are sued before you become legally compliant?

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
> "This law has to be enforced somewhere first." Still, the lawsuits should be simultaneously served to all companies. Preferably with a courtesy heads up.
- elborro 9y ago
  The DPR has been implemented since 1998. GDPR had been announced 2012, implemented fully in 2016. Active enforcement will start May 2018 with again a temporary period to allow companies to correct. Refusal to comply after that can result in penalties up to a maximum of 4% of the companies global revenue. How much courtesy lead time does a company actually need to comply?
  - wiz21c 9y ago
    Especially when such company is pushing legions of developers reduce their "time to market". "You have 20 seconds to comply" says the robocop :-)
    - gear54rus 9y ago
      Exactly, someone has to be Kinney, and it better be someone already too big for our own good.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    Courtesy heads up that they will actually enforce the law. Lawbooks are full of laws that are never enforced.
- consp 9y ago
  That's not how the law works in most European countries. Class actions don't exist, so the usual strategy is to sue the biggest company or greatest offender, since that results most likely in the best defence or the best case. The summary of the court of the case, if ruled in favor of the one suing or in favor of the public interest, will be used to prosecute all other offenders if they do not comply. If the defense wins, it can be used by others as a defense. While not 'fair' it works as the smaller fish will probably go bottoms up trying to mount a proper defense against larger governmental or lobbying groups which results in a no-win scenario for all: The company is dead and there is still no ruling, or a ruling lacking proper defense.
- simion314 9y ago
  What, if you get screwed by Google do you ue all the companies or only Google? Or say Intel users that are now sewing on the meltdown bug should they get involved in AMD too from some feeling of solidarity? In this case someone did something illegal and someone else complained to the justice, should they first find all (I hope you understand what all means, aka don't forget anybody) and try to do what? start 1000 processes in justice? It makes sense to start with the bigger criminals, if the court decides favorably then you continue to the next ones.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  1. Why should their be a "courtesy heads up"? Most of these defendants know they're breaking the law. The regulatory agencies have made their interpretations of the statutes known. 2. Do you realize how much manpower it would take to require that all separate cases be tried at once? You might as well just come out and say you don't want any cases to be tried at all, as that would be the outcome.
prostoalex 9y ago
That’s not typically how things usually work. When a government agency (think IRS or FAA) decides on a specific interpretation of a law, rule or regulation, they don’t go after a random guy to prosecute. They publish an opinion, a guideline, or interpretation and a compliance deadline. The industry is given a choice to comply or present an alternative interpretation (through courts, lobbyists or legislative representatives). It’s one thing if one company out of a hundred doesn’t comply, and somewhat different when the standard industry practice goes against new interpretation. Selective encorcement is more typical of countries with weak judicial systems and endemic corruption, where “friends” of the current government get compassionate understanding, but everybody else is subject to the strict rule of the law.
- norlys 9y ago
  Do you even know your checks and balances? This is not about government, it's about court. Facebook only has to pay because individuals (or in that case, a privacy organisation) decided to sue Facebook
- eitland 9y ago
  Well, it's not that they haven't been talking publicly for years that they are going to do something. And I guess Facebook and others have been trying to lobby it away for years already.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Europe hews to somewhat different legal and administrative philosophies from the US, and I don't think the EU is any more corrupt than the US, arguably less so. This subject is discussed very well in a favorite little book, Adversarial Legalism by Robert Kagan.
  - BjoernKW 9y ago
    This has nothing to with different legal systems or administrative philosophies but is all about politics. Europe, Germany and France in particular, has a strong history of state involvement in large corporations. I suppose you could call that an administrative philosophy. To me it sounds like another form of corruption.

IncRnd 9y ago

> The difference matters in this context because the counter argument would be "why is the law being enforced predominantly against a handful of American companies instead of the industry at large?" That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction. Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws?

EggsOnToast 9y ago
>That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction. You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism. > Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws? I'm insinuating that if someone wanted to defend Facebook's position one avenue would be to argue that the law is being selectively enforced. Obviously this isn't a comprehensive argument but it's an easy platform to jump in other directions from.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  > You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism. I doubt a statement expressing dissatisfaction is a valid legal argument responding to a legal ruling. Clearly the term argument in this context is for a legal argument not a colloquial use of the term, since a legal appeal is what is being discussed. When people get traffic tickets, the judge won't let them off for saying, "But, your honor, the police officer didn't pull over any of the other speeders around me."
  - EggsOnToast 9y ago
    I was using the term "argument" in the more broadly applicable but also literal sense of the word. Your explanation is correct but you've either misunderstood what I was saying or I've misread your reply.

goblins 9y ago

Weren't these civil actions taken by private citizens/rights group? The courts are just agreeing with these citizens/rights group. It's not like an EU agency is targeting Facebook unfairly. Personally I can only see this as a good thing. As a non-user I don't want Facebook tracking me. Same as I don't want tracked by any other company.

seszett 9y ago

> why is the law being enforced predominantly against a handful of American companies instead of the industry at large? Because the largest companies that European citizens are using and that breaking the law are American. There is no point in targetting first the Chinese and Russian companies doing the same tracking, as few European citizens are affected. And as far as I know, there is zero European company doing the same thing on such a level.

snvzz 9y ago

Because Facebook is doing it at scale.