3 ms·

Relevant if and only if all entities involved fall within a given legal jurisdiction, and many dubious firms "partners" do not for this very reason. One often c

Relevant if and only if all entities involved fall within a given legal jurisdiction, and many dubious firms "partners" do not for this very reason. One often can't completely solve a fiscally driven technical problem with legislation. Accordingly, what percentage of people actually read those 5 page end-user-agreements before enabling cloud backup on their phone (about 1/3000 on average). ;-)

jacquesm 4y ago
> Relevant if and only if all entities involved fall within a given legal jurisdiction This is not correct. For instance: https://blog.netwrix.com/2020/03/27/gdpr-in-the-us/ https://blog.netwrix.com/2020/03/27/gdpr-in-the-us/
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  I am quite sure it is not valid in Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Brazil, China and Russia? Again, one is incorrectly assuming scammers care about your local laws in the first place, and present informal fallacy as an argument with little contextual relevance. Given our uniquely crafted developer contact data was often injected into the data sets as a logic test, it was common practice to climb back up the delivery pipeline to identify the cheats and cons. ;-)
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Yes, the number of Pakistanian, Indian, Nigerian and so on websites EU people visit is off the scale. Oh, wait, it isn't. And even then: technically they do fall under the GDPR.
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      Wasn't the GDPR deployed in late 2018? By then I was well into a whole different career path. Again, an irrelevant informal fallacy orthogonal to the conversation (Autism spectrum perhaps?) Besides, most of Netherlands IP blocks are already blacklisted on my routes for various theft-of-service scams including SIP hijacking attempts. i.e. your country rates in the top 5 nuisance traffic origins... congratulations.. I guess... ;-)

3 ms·

Relevant if and only if all entities involved fall within a given legal jurisdiction, and many dubious firms "partners" do not for this very reason. One often c

by Joel_Mckay 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago
> Relevant if and only if all entities involved fall within a given legal jurisdiction This is not correct. For instance: https://blog.netwrix.com/2020/03/27/gdpr-in-the-us/ https://blog.netwrix.com/2020/03/27/gdpr-in-the-us/
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  I am quite sure it is not valid in Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Brazil, China and Russia? Again, one is incorrectly assuming scammers care about your local laws in the first place, and present informal fallacy as an argument with little contextual relevance. Given our uniquely crafted developer contact data was often injected into the data sets as a logic test, it was common practice to climb back up the delivery pipeline to identify the cheats and cons. ;-)
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Yes, the number of Pakistanian, Indian, Nigerian and so on websites EU people visit is off the scale. Oh, wait, it isn't. And even then: technically they do fall under the GDPR.
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      Wasn't the GDPR deployed in late 2018? By then I was well into a whole different career path. Again, an irrelevant informal fallacy orthogonal to the conversation (Autism spectrum perhaps?) Besides, most of Netherlands IP blocks are already blacklisted on my routes for various theft-of-service scams including SIP hijacking attempts. i.e. your country rates in the top 5 nuisance traffic origins... congratulations.. I guess... ;-)