In a certain sense, no one can know any law until the judge rules; but it seems there are people who believe: 1. To within some threshold of certainty, it is n

In a certain sense, no one can know any law until the judge rules; but it seems there are people who believe: 1. To within some threshold of certainty, it is not yet possible to determine whether blocking EU visitors by IP, asking the remainder if they are subject to the GDPR, and blocking them if they say yes complies. 2. To within that same threshold, I can determine that some other plan (e.g., whatever troydavis is implementing) complies. For anyone who thinks both of these can be true: Are you sure that you're basing those statements on the law? Or do you mean that the regulators will view (1) unfavorably and go after you, but they'll treat (2) as a good-faith effort and be nice? The latter is probably true, but it's not the rule of law. Are you okay with that? How sure are you that all those regulators (and courts) will always behave in the way that you predict, or a way that you personally consider right? I am disturbed by how willing most commenters are here to abandon the rule of law when it gets them something they want. Selective enforcement of regulations on business is a routine tactic of unfree states--remember the guy with the leopard-print fabric in Russia? I don't think it's a good idea to create powerful new tools for that, just because Europe--a continent that within living memory harbored some of the worst dictators of modern history--is well-governed right now.