4 ms·

Even before GDPR, one could receive a DMCA request, an US court order, a letter from FBI, a letter from NSA. It didn't prevent people from creating websites tho

Even before GDPR, one could receive a DMCA request, an US court order, a letter from FBI, a letter from NSA. It didn't prevent people from creating websites though. GDPR requests are definitely less scary than a letter from NSA or an US court order: nobody will put you into jail for non-compliance, kidnap you or send a drone to you.

lucb1e 8y ago
> Even before GDPR, one could receive a DMCA request, an US court order, a letter from FBI, a letter from NSA. And a data access request. This has always existed, but it was a directive which was implemented in each local law, and local legislators could give (more mild) fines but almost never did. GDPR is not new. And I'm not talking about 2016, I'm talking about the previous law from 1995 which is 95% the same for 99% of the companies.
- closeparen 8y ago
  None of those laws were extraterritorial.
  - lucb1e 8y ago
    Again, nothing changed on that front. There are two answers to your comment: - Yes they were. If you violated the law, even if your servers are outside, the country would claim the violation happened in their territory because the subject was in their country so the law was violated there, and they can sue you. - Neither is GDPR. If you are outside the EU, they can't force you to pay a fine like your own government can. Without enforcement, the law doesn't really apply. (See GDPR from 2016 until now.) Which one applies depends on a bunch of things, such as whether there's an extradition treaty and whether you have offices in the EU, etc. I've never gotten a straight answer on which law rules in such cases, but that's probably because there is no single ruling case. Both are sovereign states, who supercedes is not codified in any law because there is no higher instance to appeal to. I mean, if a small island state makes a law that if one of their citizens visits another country, that country should pay tribute for the honor of being visited by one of theirs, how in the world is that going to be enforced? Same with GDPR: the EU claims it applies worldwide, but the only reason that holds any truth is because you probably want to do business with EU citizens. Banning your company is the only thing they can truly do to you, and that has always been the case.
lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> nobody will put you into jail for non-compliance ha > kidnap you or send a drone to you thank you for making it obvious you are arguing in bad faith. Hint: you are more likely to be fined 20 million Euros for violating GDPR than having a drone sent after you for ignoring a DMCA request. If you actually believe you will have a drone sent after you for violating DMCA or ignoring a letter from the NSA go see a psychiatrist.

lucb1e 8y ago

> Even before GDPR, one could receive a DMCA request, an US court order, a letter from FBI, a letter from NSA. And a data access request. This has always existed, but it was a directive which was implemented in each local law, and local legislators could give (more mild) fines but almost never did. GDPR is not new. And I'm not talking about 2016, I'm talking about the previous law from 1995 which is 95% the same for 99% of the companies.

closeparen 8y ago
None of those laws were extraterritorial.
- lucb1e 8y ago
  Again, nothing changed on that front. There are two answers to your comment: - Yes they were. If you violated the law, even if your servers are outside, the country would claim the violation happened in their territory because the subject was in their country so the law was violated there, and they can sue you. - Neither is GDPR. If you are outside the EU, they can't force you to pay a fine like your own government can. Without enforcement, the law doesn't really apply. (See GDPR from 2016 until now.) Which one applies depends on a bunch of things, such as whether there's an extradition treaty and whether you have offices in the EU, etc. I've never gotten a straight answer on which law rules in such cases, but that's probably because there is no single ruling case. Both are sovereign states, who supercedes is not codified in any law because there is no higher instance to appeal to. I mean, if a small island state makes a law that if one of their citizens visits another country, that country should pay tribute for the honor of being visited by one of theirs, how in the world is that going to be enforced? Same with GDPR: the EU claims it applies worldwide, but the only reason that holds any truth is because you probably want to do business with EU citizens. Banning your company is the only thing they can truly do to you, and that has always been the case.

lajhsdfkl 8y ago

> nobody will put you into jail for non-compliance ha > kidnap you or send a drone to you thank you for making it obvious you are arguing in bad faith. Hint: you are more likely to be fined 20 million Euros for violating GDPR than having a drone sent after you for ignoring a DMCA request. If you actually believe you will have a drone sent after you for violating DMCA or ignoring a letter from the NSA go see a psychiatrist.