4 ms·

> 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

> 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?
- PrimeMcFly 4y ago
  No worries at all, I don't take that personally, but may I ask what facts you think I am ignoring? The facts are as follows: 1. GDPR asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is clearly documented and is within the text of the act itself. 2. This is unprecedented. There is no other law from any (lets say first world) country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to anywhere even close to the GDPR. I've provided links for both of these claims. jacquesm is arguing against both of those facts, claiming they are not in fact true, and linking to US laws trying to state that are the same thing, when they are not even close. > 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. Quoting from an earlier link I posted: "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." The point is that that Chinese web shop can provide services to EU citizens, and the EU has no way of enforcing any aspect of the GDPR on that Chinese webs hop, and I'm pretty sure China would be the first to tell you the GDPR does not apply within its borders. > 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. In this case, the company could be following the laws in their home country, and be in violation of the GDPR just because an EU citizen bought something from them. In this case, the EU is responsible for blocking the website, rather than the website needing to be in compliance with the GDPR.
  - swores 4y ago
    > "This is unprecedented. There is no other law from any (lets say first world) country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to anywhere even close to the GDPR." Here's an example of that not being true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload Or a more recent example that's related to financial/fraud regulations rather than copyright law, look at the FTX / Sam Bankman-Fried situation. Being registered in the Bahamas didn't make what FTX was doing to US customers any less illegal in the eyes of the US justice system. Or, I mentioned COPPA earlier, and that's been enforced at least once against a Chinese company - https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/largest-ftc-coppa-settlement-requires-musically-change-its-tune https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/largest-f...
    - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
      > Here's an example of that not being true: That's not an example at all. I'm talking specifics here. The GDPR is the first law of it's kind that just outright asserts jurisdiction anywhere, as long as the origin took some data from an EU citizen. That is absolutely unprecedented. I'm not aware of any remotely similar law in commerce or communications in any other country. Megaupload is about an international seizure of a specific company, not farreaching broad open-ended legislation. COPPA only applies domestically, and is significantly more narrow in scope. I know wiki says the FTC asserts it has international reach, but the actual text of the legislation (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-312 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...) says no such thing, and the wiki says that opinion isn't taken seriously. Also, in the case of Bytedance, they have a US presence which is why they were able to be sued in a US court: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.371242/gov.uscourts.ilnd.371242.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.37... So yeah, I would still say it's unprecedented, I really can't see how there is anything similar.
      - swores 4y ago
        I don't really see how to argue further since you seem to be intentionally missing the point and looking for minor pedantic nuances that don't actually change the situation. So I'll let you know that I still think you're entirely wrong, and agree to disagree.

> 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?

PrimeMcFly 4y ago
No worries at all, I don't take that personally, but may I ask what facts you think I am ignoring? The facts are as follows: 1. GDPR asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is clearly documented and is within the text of the act itself. 2. This is unprecedented. There is no other law from any (lets say first world) country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to anywhere even close to the GDPR. I've provided links for both of these claims. jacquesm is arguing against both of those facts, claiming they are not in fact true, and linking to US laws trying to state that are the same thing, when they are not even close. > 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. Quoting from an earlier link I posted: "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." The point is that that Chinese web shop can provide services to EU citizens, and the EU has no way of enforcing any aspect of the GDPR on that Chinese webs hop, and I'm pretty sure China would be the first to tell you the GDPR does not apply within its borders. > 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. In this case, the company could be following the laws in their home country, and be in violation of the GDPR just because an EU citizen bought something from them. In this case, the EU is responsible for blocking the website, rather than the website needing to be in compliance with the GDPR.
- swores 4y ago
  > "This is unprecedented. There is no other law from any (lets say first world) country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to anywhere even close to the GDPR." Here's an example of that not being true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload Or a more recent example that's related to financial/fraud regulations rather than copyright law, look at the FTX / Sam Bankman-Fried situation. Being registered in the Bahamas didn't make what FTX was doing to US customers any less illegal in the eyes of the US justice system. Or, I mentioned COPPA earlier, and that's been enforced at least once against a Chinese company - https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/largest-ftc-coppa-settlement-requires-musically-change-its-tune https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/largest-f...
  - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
    > Here's an example of that not being true: That's not an example at all. I'm talking specifics here. The GDPR is the first law of it's kind that just outright asserts jurisdiction anywhere, as long as the origin took some data from an EU citizen. That is absolutely unprecedented. I'm not aware of any remotely similar law in commerce or communications in any other country. Megaupload is about an international seizure of a specific company, not farreaching broad open-ended legislation. COPPA only applies domestically, and is significantly more narrow in scope. I know wiki says the FTC asserts it has international reach, but the actual text of the legislation (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-312 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...) says no such thing, and the wiki says that opinion isn't taken seriously. Also, in the case of Bytedance, they have a US presence which is why they were able to be sued in a US court: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.371242/gov.uscourts.ilnd.371242.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.37... So yeah, I would still say it's unprecedented, I really can't see how there is anything similar.
    - swores 4y ago
      I don't really see how to argue further since you seem to be intentionally missing the point and looking for minor pedantic nuances that don't actually change the situation. So I'll let you know that I still think you're entirely wrong, and agree to disagree.