6 ms·

The issue is that US companies are following the letter of the rules while violating the spirit. If the spirit of the law is to ban your business model, switch

The issue is that US companies are following the letter of the rules while violating the spirit. If the spirit of the law is to ban your business model, switch to a different one or stop operating. A company that tries to weasel around the rules while knowing exactly what the EU meant is just taking the regulators and courts for fools. > good lawyers If US companies keep getting fined despite having "good lawyers", maybe those lawyers aren't that good after all.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> The issue is that US companies are following the letter of the rules while violating the spirit. "The spirit of the law" is the refuge of people that can't be bothered to make good laws to begin with and just want to make up whatever rules they want ex post facto. > If the spirit of the law is to ban your business model, switch to a different one or stop operating. If the spirit of the law is to ban their business model then stop pussyfooting around it and just make that the letter of the law. > If US companies keep getting fined despite having "good lawyers", maybe those lawyers aren't that good after all. A good lawyer can't always overcome a bad court.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > "The spirit of the law" is the refuge of people that can't be bothered to make good laws to begin with and just want to make up whatever rules they want ex post facto. That's a good approach if you want to play silly games, but fortunately the EU prefers effective regulation. And its courts are reliable enough that we can rely on its judges having common sense when interpreting the law. Maybe the US is different. > If the spirit of the law is to ban their business model then stop pussyfooting around it and just make that the letter of the law. It is, actually. But the good lawyers of US companies apparently believe, for example, that "freely given consent" means "clicking a button to make an overlay go away because we make the provision of our service conditional to spying on them". What does the GDPR say? > When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. US companies are openly breaking the GDPR and violating people's privacy. Frankly, 4% is far too low for this kind of insolence.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > That's a good approach if you want to play silly games, but fortunately the EU prefers effective regulation. Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. > It is, actually. But the good lawyers of US companies apparently believe, for example, that "freely given consent" means "clicking a button to make an overlay go away because we make the provision of our service conditional to spying on them". You seem to be claiming that things like this do not exist: https://myactivity.google.com/ https://myactivity.google.com/ How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? > US companies are openly breaking the GDPR and violating people's privacy. Frankly, 4% is far too low for this kind of insolence. You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. > How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You can't turn Google's spying off. They show a modal that you can only dismiss by "agreeing" that they use your data for their purposes. > You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors. Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. > You can't turn Google's spying off. Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? > Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question. It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there?
- jolfdb 7y ago
  1000 years of common law and human language disagrees with your idiosyncratic computer-programmer wishful view of what law is.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    > idiosyncratic computer-programmer wishful view What did you mean by this nonsense?
    - lone-commenter 7y ago
      Odd, simplistic view?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    "We have had rule of men rather than rule of law for many years and you, nerd, are a silly pedant for wanting something better."
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Our laws may be hard to understand for people whose salary depends on not understanding them, but we do have rule of law, thank you very much.
    - jolfdb 7y ago
      Law is in service of all the people. Rule of law is preferred over rule of lawyers.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        "Rule of law" is the one where the letter of the law is a clear and unambiguous true statement of the intent of the legislature. "Rule of lawyers" is what happens when it isn't and then you need a rhetorician to have an ex post facto political debate about "the spirit of the law" in a courtroom rather than in the statehouse where it belongs to begin with.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
>If the spirit of the law is to ban your business model, switch to a different one or stop operating. That may end up happening. With the copyright directive and these fines, companies may find that serving EU consumers is not worth it and may start blocking EU users from their services.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- anoncake 7y ago
  That's good, it means we don't have to block them.
- takeda 7y ago
  They will probably also block California in a year or so, since similar law will come into effect then.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Spirit is subjective and letter is objective. It is easy to follow objectively defined rules but impossible to follow subjectively defined rules.
- anoncake 7y ago
  I'm sorry that you find it impossible to follow "subjectively defined rules". Fortunately, most people have no issues doing that.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Huh, so you prefer rule by law over rule of law? Most people don't prefer that.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      The difference between rule of law and rule by law is that rule of law is primarily about the spirit of the law while rule by law is what you want.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        > about the spirit of the law while rule by law is what you want. And the difference is? Those are both very subjective. The EU could get around this by not writing crappy laws, but I guess this is why we have courts.
        anoncake 7y ago
        > And the difference is? Those are both very subjective. Compared to what is the letter of the law subjective? Pure math? > The EU could get around this by not writing crappy laws, but I guess this is why we have courts. People not making mistakes and having infinite foresight would solve so many problems. Probably not the one of natural language being fuzzy, though.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> The issue is that US companies are following the letter of the rules while violating the spirit. "The spirit of the law" is the refuge of people that can't be bothered to make good laws to begin with and just want to make up whatever rules they want ex post facto. > If the spirit of the law is to ban your business model, switch to a different one or stop operating. If the spirit of the law is to ban their business model then stop pussyfooting around it and just make that the letter of the law. > If US companies keep getting fined despite having "good lawyers", maybe those lawyers aren't that good after all. A good lawyer can't always overcome a bad court.

anoncake 7y ago
> "The spirit of the law" is the refuge of people that can't be bothered to make good laws to begin with and just want to make up whatever rules they want ex post facto. That's a good approach if you want to play silly games, but fortunately the EU prefers effective regulation. And its courts are reliable enough that we can rely on its judges having common sense when interpreting the law. Maybe the US is different. > If the spirit of the law is to ban their business model then stop pussyfooting around it and just make that the letter of the law. It is, actually. But the good lawyers of US companies apparently believe, for example, that "freely given consent" means "clicking a button to make an overlay go away because we make the provision of our service conditional to spying on them". What does the GDPR say? > When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. US companies are openly breaking the GDPR and violating people's privacy. Frankly, 4% is far too low for this kind of insolence.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > That's a good approach if you want to play silly games, but fortunately the EU prefers effective regulation. Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. > It is, actually. But the good lawyers of US companies apparently believe, for example, that "freely given consent" means "clicking a button to make an overlay go away because we make the provision of our service conditional to spying on them". You seem to be claiming that things like this do not exist: https://myactivity.google.com/ https://myactivity.google.com/ How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? > US companies are openly breaking the GDPR and violating people's privacy. Frankly, 4% is far too low for this kind of insolence. You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. > How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You can't turn Google's spying off. They show a modal that you can only dismiss by "agreeing" that they use your data for their purposes. > You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors. Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. > You can't turn Google's spying off. Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? > Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question. It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there?
jolfdb 7y ago
1000 years of common law and human language disagrees with your idiosyncratic computer-programmer wishful view of what law is.
- antidesitter 7y ago
  > idiosyncratic computer-programmer wishful view What did you mean by this nonsense?
  - lone-commenter 7y ago
    Odd, simplistic view?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  "We have had rule of men rather than rule of law for many years and you, nerd, are a silly pedant for wanting something better."
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Our laws may be hard to understand for people whose salary depends on not understanding them, but we do have rule of law, thank you very much.
  - jolfdb 7y ago
    Law is in service of all the people. Rule of law is preferred over rule of lawyers.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      "Rule of law" is the one where the letter of the law is a clear and unambiguous true statement of the intent of the legislature. "Rule of lawyers" is what happens when it isn't and then you need a rhetorician to have an ex post facto political debate about "the spirit of the law" in a courtroom rather than in the statehouse where it belongs to begin with.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

>If the spirit of the law is to ban your business model, switch to a different one or stop operating. That may end up happening. With the copyright directive and these fines, companies may find that serving EU consumers is not worth it and may start blocking EU users from their services.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anoncake 7y ago
That's good, it means we don't have to block them.
takeda 7y ago
They will probably also block California in a year or so, since similar law will come into effect then.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

Spirit is subjective and letter is objective. It is easy to follow objectively defined rules but impossible to follow subjectively defined rules.

anoncake 7y ago
I'm sorry that you find it impossible to follow "subjectively defined rules". Fortunately, most people have no issues doing that.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  Huh, so you prefer rule by law over rule of law? Most people don't prefer that.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The difference between rule of law and rule by law is that rule of law is primarily about the spirit of the law while rule by law is what you want.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      > about the spirit of the law while rule by law is what you want. And the difference is? Those are both very subjective. The EU could get around this by not writing crappy laws, but I guess this is why we have courts.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        > And the difference is? Those are both very subjective. Compared to what is the letter of the law subjective? Pure math? > The EU could get around this by not writing crappy laws, but I guess this is why we have courts. People not making mistakes and having infinite foresight would solve so many problems. Probably not the one of natural language being fuzzy, though.