3 ms·
> Please keep pushing such certifications until they become regulations that, like GDPR, even we American developers cannot ignore. People are apparently surpr
by msla 4y ago
> Please keep pushing such certifications until they become regulations that, like GDPR, even we American developers cannot ignore.
People are apparently surprised at how easy it is to ignore the GDPR:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200813235643/http://slawsonandslawson.com/article-32-the-hole-in-the-gdpr-wall/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200813235643/http://slawsonand...
> Article 3(2), a new feature of the GDPR, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over companies that have nothing but an internet presence in the EU and offer goods or services to EU residents[1]. While the GDPR requires these companies[2] to follow its data processing rules, it leaves the question of enforcement unanswered. Regulations that cannot be enforced do little to protect the personal data of EU citizens.
> This article discusses how U.S. law affects the enforcement of Article 3(2). In reality, enforcing the GDPR on U.S. companies may be almost impossible. First, the U.S. prohibits enforcing of foreign-country fines. Thus, the EU enforcement power of fines for noncompliance is negligible. Second, enforcing the GDPR through the designated representative can be easily circumvented. Finally, a private lawsuit brought by in the EU may be impossible to enforce under U.S. law.
[snip]
> Currently, there is a hole in the GDPR wall that protects European Union personal data. Even with extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. companies with only an internet presence in the EU, the GDPR gives little in the way of tools to enforce it. Fines from supervisory authorities would be stopped by the prohibition on enforcing foreign fines. The company can evade enforcement through a representative simply by not designating one. Finally, private actions may be stalled on issues of personal jurisdiction. If a U.S. company completely disregards the GDPR while targeting customers in the EU, it can use the personal data of EU citizens without much fear of the consequences. While the extraterritorial jurisdiction created by Article 3(2) may have seemed like a good way to solve the problem of foreign companies who do not have a physical presence in the EU, it turns out to be practically useless.
"Patching" that hole seems to require either action on the American side or, perhaps, a return to old-fashioned impressment or similar projection of Majestic European Power to Benighted Lands Beyond the Ocean Sea. /s
- afiori 4y agoThe EU can fine US companies the same as it can fine most other extraterritorial companies, that is only if the other country allows it. The EU is not going to start an armed invasion over a GDPR violation. Still big multinational companies will have international branches (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, ...) that can easily be fined in their host countries.
- account42 4y agoThe EU can also prevent companies from doing business in the EU if they don't follow the local laws. No need for an armed invasion if the EU can block all transfers from EU banks for anything related to your company.
- afiori 4y agoI think GP was referring to enforcing GDPR against companies that do not do business in the EU (no employment, no sales, no bank account, no revenue, no taxes, etc.). For example, a company like Digital Ocean might have no assets of any kind in the EU (assuming that they don't own their European datacenters), so the EU cannot force them to pay a fine nor seize their assets; the EU could technically sanction them by stopping EU datacenter providers (like AWS-Germany) from renting compute to Digital Ocean, but maybe not for something like a GDPR violation.