3 ms·
(a) 20M EUR (b) It's possible to simultaneously believe that the GDPR is basically lawless (i.e., that regulatory discretion determines who pays what more than
by tripletao 8y ago
(a) 20M EUR
(b) It's possible to simultaneously believe that the GDPR is basically lawless (i.e., that regulatory discretion determines who pays what more than the text of the law does), and basically fine. That's how most of the countries in the world work--China has no law explaining who they'll kill for their organs, but I still know they won't kill me for mine. I happen to like the rule of law, and I'm sad to see Europe degrade that, with its citizens cheering the way; but most humans in history have lived without it.
- downandout 8y agoa) 20M EUR You’re correct. Which is actually more than $20M. China has no law explaining who they'll kill for their organs, but I still know they won't kill me for mine I don’t live in China, and the odds that they will come to the US and kill me for my organs are quite small. However, the odds that the EU may be able to use existing, well-established international treaties regarding the enforcement of EU judgments to impose their new “pseudo-tax” on me in the US are considerably higher.
- tripletao 8y agoI still think the US is unlikely to enforce a judgment for behavior that would have been lawful under US law. The existence of Privacy Shield (a program where US companies can voluntarily subject themselves to EU-style privacy regulations) seems to imply that, since it wouldn't be necessary otherwise. But no one can say for sure until the judge rules, so I can see not wanting to roll the dice...