3 ms·

In fairness, this story is consistent with my own (limited) experience dealing with EU law. A few years ago, I was trying to determine if an EU based company I

In fairness, this story is consistent with my own (limited) experience dealing with EU law. A few years ago, I was trying to determine if an EU based company I was advising really needed to offer the now-ubiquitous cookie advisories. I met with some very high profile (and very expensive) lawyers, who told me that although I technically needed to include the various popups and advisories, I was not in any real danger, because of selective enforcement. Eventually, they changed their mind and we added the sliders anyway, but for a time, the law was stricter than the actual enforcement. But I was an american being advised by a top tier british law firm. How is a random guy releasing free (or cheap) services on the internet supposed to deal with a situation like that? The arbitrary nature of the enforcement is exactly what makes this a problem. If there were strong penalties, but clear ways to remain in compliance, this developer might have made a different call. If I know I'm technically out of compliance, and I don't have a high powered lawyer telling me it's not a big deal, then I'm not sleeping well. And if I can solve the problem once and for all by taking the unfortunate step of simply cutting EU residents off of the service, then I'm going to at least consider that option, and probably take it in the short term. If the EU wants to reassure people that "The regulators send a letter asking you to come back into compliance unless you've been really bad. They only move to fines if you ignore them." then they would be well advised to make that very clear. If they don't, you're going to see more of this, and really, if it's true, why wouldn't they?

DanBC 8y ago
I mean, I linked to an article where they do say this. > The ICO said in a statement that it would only consider “enforcement action” if a company failed to register despite ICO advice. And they keep saying this.
- fcbrooklyn 8y ago
  So, imagine you're running a free service as a side project. And the state of Idaho introduces a law, that has federal teeth, such that if a resident of Idaho might use your service, you must register with the state of Idaho. Would you be happy about that? Is there any possibility that you might decide to simply block Idaho rather than deal with the hassle? A better solution would be a webpage, hosted by the state of Idaho saying "Here's what we're after, don't do these things, and you're in no danger." Followed, hopefully, by a list of things that you weren't planning on doing anyway because you're not a jerk, and that are crystal clear so you don't have to speculate about how selective the attorney general of the state of Idaho is in prosecuting these sorts of crimes.

DanBC 8y ago

I mean, I linked to an article where they do say this. > The ICO said in a statement that it would only consider “enforcement action” if a company failed to register despite ICO advice. And they keep saying this.

fcbrooklyn 8y ago
So, imagine you're running a free service as a side project. And the state of Idaho introduces a law, that has federal teeth, such that if a resident of Idaho might use your service, you must register with the state of Idaho. Would you be happy about that? Is there any possibility that you might decide to simply block Idaho rather than deal with the hassle? A better solution would be a webpage, hosted by the state of Idaho saying "Here's what we're after, don't do these things, and you're in no danger." Followed, hopefully, by a list of things that you weren't planning on doing anyway because you're not a jerk, and that are crystal clear so you don't have to speculate about how selective the attorney general of the state of Idaho is in prosecuting these sorts of crimes.