6 ms·

> The US believes it has extraterritorial jurisdiction as well in many places, even in some cases where it isn't their citizens that are affected. So what? We'

> The US believes it has extraterritorial jurisdiction as well in many places, even in some cases where it isn't their citizens that are affected. So what? We're discussing the GDPR. Pretty sure the US has no similar law at all. GDPR was considered a first. > In general countries may well claim that their law applies even if you believe it doesn't, you then break that law at your own risk You're trying to compare GDPR to general prinicples and it doesn't work. GDPR was a new type of law. See https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/risk/articles/gdpr-extraterritorial-applicability.html https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/risk/articles/gdpr-ext... "Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU." Yeah, that's unprecedented.

jacquesm 4y ago
> Pretty sure the US has no similar law at all. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa > You're trying to compare GDPR to general prinicples and it doesn't work. GDPR was a new type of law. No, it's a law like every other. You abide by it or you end up dealing with the business end. > "Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU." > Yeah, that's unprecedented. No, it isn't unprecedented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf... And that's before we get to AML and ATF legislation that the US has enacted and basically enforced all of the world of finance.
- PrimeMcFly 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    > At this point you seem to be being wilfully ignorant. Ok, we're done here.
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      I meant no insult, but I see no other explanation. You're ignoring the letter of the law, ignoring context and nuance, making unfounded claims and providing links that don't support your points at all.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        > I meant no insult, but I see no other explanation. Then maybe you should consult the guidelines.
        Zurrrrr 4y ago
        > Then maybe you should consult the guidelines. And if someone is continuing to ignore facts and claim clearly false things as you were, what is the polite way to point that out?
        swores 4y ago
        I'll jump in here between the two of you and say that from my point of view it's you ignoring facts not jacquesm. I accept that if you believe jacquesm to be arguing in bad faith there's not a way to say that without it being a little bit rude, but I believe that description actually applies to your comments and not theirs. edit: your original claim- > GDPR tries to enforce its rules on servers outside of its territory. It's enforcing rules on data sent to/from people in the EU and the servers (not just servers ofc), i.e. on companies offering their services to people in the EU. If the companies don't wish to follow the laws of a specific country (or in this case, all EU countries), they're welcome to not provide services to those users. Since you seem to think the example they gave doesn't count because it's a Californian law not federal (not sure why that matters...), how about stuff like "The FTC engages with competition and consumer protection agencies in other countries to halt deceptive and anticompetitive business practices that affect U.S. consumers." ( https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international ) which includes laws such as COPPA ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_... ) Or let's say there's a country in Europe where hacking and ransomeware are completely legal, and a company in that country focussed their ransomeware efforts on attacking American companies. Would you argue that either the USA wouldn't care about that because it's outside their jurisdiction, or that they shouldn't care because it's outside their jurisdiction?

jacquesm 4y ago

> Pretty sure the US has no similar law at all. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa > You're trying to compare GDPR to general prinicples and it doesn't work. GDPR was a new type of law. No, it's a law like every other. You abide by it or you end up dealing with the business end. > "Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU." > Yeah, that's unprecedented. No, it isn't unprecedented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf... And that's before we get to AML and ATF legislation that the US has enacted and basically enforced all of the world of finance.

PrimeMcFly 4y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > At this point you seem to be being wilfully ignorant. Ok, we're done here.
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    I meant no insult, but I see no other explanation. You're ignoring the letter of the law, ignoring context and nuance, making unfounded claims and providing links that don't support your points at all.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      > I meant no insult, but I see no other explanation. Then maybe you should consult the guidelines.
      - Zurrrrr 4y ago
        > Then maybe you should consult the guidelines. And if someone is continuing to ignore facts and claim clearly false things as you were, what is the polite way to point that out?
        swores 4y ago
        I'll jump in here between the two of you and say that from my point of view it's you ignoring facts not jacquesm. I accept that if you believe jacquesm to be arguing in bad faith there's not a way to say that without it being a little bit rude, but I believe that description actually applies to your comments and not theirs. edit: your original claim- > GDPR tries to enforce its rules on servers outside of its territory. It's enforcing rules on data sent to/from people in the EU and the servers (not just servers ofc), i.e. on companies offering their services to people in the EU. If the companies don't wish to follow the laws of a specific country (or in this case, all EU countries), they're welcome to not provide services to those users. Since you seem to think the example they gave doesn't count because it's a Californian law not federal (not sure why that matters...), how about stuff like "The FTC engages with competition and consumer protection agencies in other countries to halt deceptive and anticompetitive business practices that affect U.S. consumers." ( https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international ) which includes laws such as COPPA ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_... ) Or let's say there's a country in Europe where hacking and ransomeware are completely legal, and a company in that country focussed their ransomeware efforts on attacking American companies. Would you argue that either the USA wouldn't care about that because it's outside their jurisdiction, or that they shouldn't care because it's outside their jurisdiction?