3 ms·

The difference is that one is an example of actual and well-thought out legislation in the EU which is generally welcomed by the people most affected by it: EU

The difference is that one is an example of actual and well-thought out legislation in the EU which is generally welcomed by the people most affected by it: EU citizens. The other is a trumped up example by someone on whom the GDPR self-admittedly has hardly any bearing but who still insists on throwing a hissy fit because legislation is somehow un-american or something.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
I disagree on "well thought out", but it doesn't really matter. I don't think that legislation is "un-american" or that the EU shouldn't have passed this law for its citizens. My issue is with the attempt to declare that it applies so broadly to organizations in other countries who have no connection to the EU except that EU visitors might come to their website. I'm going to assume you're intentionally not trying to understand the broader principle here, but just in case: Reposted from another comment: My primary argument is that the GDPR's attempt to regulate companies in other jurisdictions because EU citizens go INTO those jurisdictions and do business is a dangerous precedent. If there was an enforcement mechanism for all such laws, it implies that any business or individual anywhere in the world with a website should therefore have to comply with any laws from any jurisdiction that are similarly constructed. If my website says things about Islam that Saudi Arabia passes a law against, I should be fined. If my website disrespects the king of Thailand, I should be extradited for imprisonment. If I encourage NK citizens to revolt against their oppressive regime, I should end up in a labor camp. After all, those governments have a right to say that if I want to "do business in their jurisdiction", I must respect their laws, right? (To be clear, I'm not talking about enforcement of these kinds of laws, because all of those countries might do the above if given the chance. I'm talking about what I SHOULD do as a matter of morality or ethics or civic duty or whatever, or what my government should cooperate with those governments on, because it's just.) But the problem is that they're describing "doing business in their jurisdiction" as a citizen from their country (maybe even one who is currently visiting my country) going online and sending my server requests, data, and money. And apparently explicitly telling those citizens to please NOT do that, or blocking them, is not sufficient. The only way to make the majority of the EU users on HN happy is to comply. Why would that same logic not apply to all other kinds of laws?
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  There is no conspiracy here. If you don't do business with the EU, the EU has nothing on you. They have no other mechanism for enforcing compliance. If you would disrespect the king of Thailand, and you would go to Thailand, they might act on their laws and lock you up. If you would break Eu privacy laws, and you would try and do business with the EU, they might act on their laws and enforce their fines. There is no precedent being set here. Even the US is more than willing to freeze assets of foreign actors when they believe they have been wronged abroad. If you ignore the EU and the GDPR completely, nothing can touch you, you just can't do business with them until you stop ignoring them
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    You're focusing on the enforcement issue, and I agree with all the points you've listed here. My concern is that they're even trying to make this claim, and that so many fans of the GDPR think it's a reasonable one.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

I disagree on "well thought out", but it doesn't really matter. I don't think that legislation is "un-american" or that the EU shouldn't have passed this law for its citizens. My issue is with the attempt to declare that it applies so broadly to organizations in other countries who have no connection to the EU except that EU visitors might come to their website. I'm going to assume you're intentionally not trying to understand the broader principle here, but just in case: Reposted from another comment: My primary argument is that the GDPR's attempt to regulate companies in other jurisdictions because EU citizens go INTO those jurisdictions and do business is a dangerous precedent. If there was an enforcement mechanism for all such laws, it implies that any business or individual anywhere in the world with a website should therefore have to comply with any laws from any jurisdiction that are similarly constructed. If my website says things about Islam that Saudi Arabia passes a law against, I should be fined. If my website disrespects the king of Thailand, I should be extradited for imprisonment. If I encourage NK citizens to revolt against their oppressive regime, I should end up in a labor camp. After all, those governments have a right to say that if I want to "do business in their jurisdiction", I must respect their laws, right? (To be clear, I'm not talking about enforcement of these kinds of laws, because all of those countries might do the above if given the chance. I'm talking about what I SHOULD do as a matter of morality or ethics or civic duty or whatever, or what my government should cooperate with those governments on, because it's just.) But the problem is that they're describing "doing business in their jurisdiction" as a citizen from their country (maybe even one who is currently visiting my country) going online and sending my server requests, data, and money. And apparently explicitly telling those citizens to please NOT do that, or blocking them, is not sufficient. The only way to make the majority of the EU users on HN happy is to comply. Why would that same logic not apply to all other kinds of laws?

craigsmansion 8y ago
There is no conspiracy here. If you don't do business with the EU, the EU has nothing on you. They have no other mechanism for enforcing compliance. If you would disrespect the king of Thailand, and you would go to Thailand, they might act on their laws and lock you up. If you would break Eu privacy laws, and you would try and do business with the EU, they might act on their laws and enforce their fines. There is no precedent being set here. Even the US is more than willing to freeze assets of foreign actors when they believe they have been wronged abroad. If you ignore the EU and the GDPR completely, nothing can touch you, you just can't do business with them until you stop ignoring them
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  You're focusing on the enforcement issue, and I agree with all the points you've listed here. My concern is that they're even trying to make this claim, and that so many fans of the GDPR think it's a reasonable one.