8 ms·

Some of these giant fines on foreign corporations, when there’s no similar fines on domestic ones, have a backdoor tariff vibe.

raizer88 3y ago
It is hard to see an Irish company send data to the US, since US authorities only require US companies to do so.
- jkaplowitz 3y ago
  And yet, many European companies do routinely send data to the US, primarily in the context of using US-based service providers. They pretend that disclosing this transfer to the customer and pointing out that the ECJ has deemed US data protection as unacceptable allows them to do it anyway. In practice this may be true, but that’s only because the theory of what the GDPR requires is so rarely enforced in meaningful ways.
zpeti 3y ago
Yeah, especially when in the case of the fine for consent about personal ads, the fine was for violations before the law was in place. That is an insane precedent. Most legal systems understand that applying laws retroactively is a really big no no, as it can create a massive overreach of power in the future, and also creates a hugely unpredictable present, if any time in the future you can be liable. The EU's obsession with getting money from US tech companies is leading it down really dangerous paths.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >The EU's obsession with getting money from US tech companies is leading it down really dangerous paths. Yeah shame on EU for issuing fines for the anti-consumer, privacy abusive and illegal practices of the saint ad-ware empires of US big-tech companies. How dare they protect their citizens? Don't they know big-tech should be left unregulated to abuse people so billionaires can become trillionares? Speaking of double standards it's funny how the US keeps wanting to ban Chinese TikTok for doing the same abusive data collection Meta and Google was doing without issues. US shouldn't lecture anyone on tech regulations.
  - zpeti 3y ago
    I was talking about how bad it is to apply laws retroactively. I said none of the things you are saying.
- miken123 3y ago
  > Yeah, especially when in the case of the fine for consent about personal ads, the fine was for violations before the law was in place. Do you have any source for that, or are you just making up things on the spot here? (I can help you, it's the latter)
  - zpeti 3y ago
    Ben Thompson wrote exactly about my point in his newsletter. But thanks for your accusation.
    - jkaplowitz 3y ago
      Can you provide a link or the full quote of the relevant section, so that we can see what’s going on here? My expectation is that he’s misunderstanding the situation.
      - zpeti 3y ago
        To be fair, it is not 100% clear on my original post that I am not talking about this fine but a previous one. But if you read it carefully that is was I say. And here is Ben thompson on 11th January 2023: "In short, Meta can not make access to its personalized social media services contingent on accepting personalized advertising; moreover, the company was fined for having done just that, despite the fact their regulator agreed with them that that was acceptable. I find this decision disturbing for two reasons. First, it seems unduly punitive that Meta can be fined a material amount for an approach that is not only reasonable on its face (more on this in a moment), but also one that its primary regulator agreed was appropriate. GDPR is not clear on this point, and it’s ridiculous that a company can be retroactively fined for not reading the minds of EU bureacrats. Second, and more importantly, the fact that Meta must offer personalized social networking to users — which uses their data! — but cannot tie that to offering personalized ads — which uses their data in the exact same way, and without sharing or selling that data to advertisers — is a completely arbitrary attack on Meta’s ability to do business. Let me reiterate that point: serving a video or a post in your Facebook feed is no different from serving an ad; it is Facebook that is choosing what to serve you, not an advertiser, who has no access to users or their data. It’s all just bits, it just so happens that some of those bits make Meta money. That, apparently, is the crime here (and a callback to the Google Shopping case)." Do you still think the EU is acting like a fair player? When in fact they are both a player and the referee? This type of behavior is exactly why there wont ever be any major innovation in the EU. And I live here btw.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  > The EU's obsession with getting money from US tech companies is leading it down really dangerous paths. Gotta love the menacing language. If Meta is not happy with the fines they have multiple options: 1) Actually respect regulations. It's not that hard for a company with so many resources. 2) Stop operating in EU There is no dangerous path for the EU here. The block has the right to define it's regulations, and companies have to comply or be justly punished. That's all there is to it.
  - zpeti 3y ago
    You can’t respect regulations that don’t exist yet. Yet that is what the EU is expecting. That’s my point. Just because someone is beating up on Facebook, which even I agree with, doesn’t mean any method is justified or is a good idea for the future.
    - raron 3y ago
      GDPR is in effect for 5 years, and it exists since 2016...
    - surgical_fire 3y ago
      > You can’t respect regulations that don’t exist yet. Yet that is what the EU is expecting. GDPR is not new. It has existed for quite a while. Source: I live in the EU, and worked for companies that respect GDPR regulations, having participated in projects to comply with said regulations.
  - raron 3y ago
    > 1) Actually respect regulations. It's not that hard for a company with so many resources. It is hard if your whole business model is the opposite of data protection :-)
    - surgical_fire 3y ago
      This is the crux of the matter is it not? If that's the case, I hope EU keeps piling up on the fines against Facebook. Maybe it's a business that shouldn't exist on this side of the pond.
izacus 3y ago
If you look at the list of fines you'll see there's plenty domestic ones. You're just reading American media.
- neximo64 3y ago
  You can check out the list of fines here: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ If you took the top, single fine for one American company (Amazon). It is alone more than the sum of all domestic fines in all EU member states put together.
  - Macha 3y ago
    How much bigger is Amazon than the largest EU company?
    - bradleyjg 3y ago
      Bigger how? In terms of Irish revenue?
      - s_dev 3y ago
        GDPR fines can be based on global revenue.
        bradleyjg 3y ago
        Which contributes to the impression that it’s a backdoor tariff.
        Macha 3y ago
        If it was based on local revenue, companies could easily structure it so that the regulation has no teeth.
        neximo64 3y ago
pjc50 3y ago
The only reason Apple is subject to the Irish DPA and not those of another country is they chose backdoor tax avoidance.
LunaSea 3y ago
Not like the US has been doing exactly this to European companies like Alstom, Alcatel, Technip & co. A bit rich.

raizer88 3y ago

It is hard to see an Irish company send data to the US, since US authorities only require US companies to do so.

jkaplowitz 3y ago
And yet, many European companies do routinely send data to the US, primarily in the context of using US-based service providers. They pretend that disclosing this transfer to the customer and pointing out that the ECJ has deemed US data protection as unacceptable allows them to do it anyway. In practice this may be true, but that’s only because the theory of what the GDPR requires is so rarely enforced in meaningful ways.

zpeti 3y ago

Yeah, especially when in the case of the fine for consent about personal ads, the fine was for violations before the law was in place. That is an insane precedent. Most legal systems understand that applying laws retroactively is a really big no no, as it can create a massive overreach of power in the future, and also creates a hugely unpredictable present, if any time in the future you can be liable. The EU's obsession with getting money from US tech companies is leading it down really dangerous paths.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
>The EU's obsession with getting money from US tech companies is leading it down really dangerous paths. Yeah shame on EU for issuing fines for the anti-consumer, privacy abusive and illegal practices of the saint ad-ware empires of US big-tech companies. How dare they protect their citizens? Don't they know big-tech should be left unregulated to abuse people so billionaires can become trillionares? Speaking of double standards it's funny how the US keeps wanting to ban Chinese TikTok for doing the same abusive data collection Meta and Google was doing without issues. US shouldn't lecture anyone on tech regulations.
- zpeti 3y ago
  I was talking about how bad it is to apply laws retroactively. I said none of the things you are saying.
miken123 3y ago
> Yeah, especially when in the case of the fine for consent about personal ads, the fine was for violations before the law was in place. Do you have any source for that, or are you just making up things on the spot here? (I can help you, it's the latter)
- zpeti 3y ago
  Ben Thompson wrote exactly about my point in his newsletter. But thanks for your accusation.
  - jkaplowitz 3y ago
    Can you provide a link or the full quote of the relevant section, so that we can see what’s going on here? My expectation is that he’s misunderstanding the situation.
    - zpeti 3y ago
      To be fair, it is not 100% clear on my original post that I am not talking about this fine but a previous one. But if you read it carefully that is was I say. And here is Ben thompson on 11th January 2023: "In short, Meta can not make access to its personalized social media services contingent on accepting personalized advertising; moreover, the company was fined for having done just that, despite the fact their regulator agreed with them that that was acceptable. I find this decision disturbing for two reasons. First, it seems unduly punitive that Meta can be fined a material amount for an approach that is not only reasonable on its face (more on this in a moment), but also one that its primary regulator agreed was appropriate. GDPR is not clear on this point, and it’s ridiculous that a company can be retroactively fined for not reading the minds of EU bureacrats. Second, and more importantly, the fact that Meta must offer personalized social networking to users — which uses their data! — but cannot tie that to offering personalized ads — which uses their data in the exact same way, and without sharing or selling that data to advertisers — is a completely arbitrary attack on Meta’s ability to do business. Let me reiterate that point: serving a video or a post in your Facebook feed is no different from serving an ad; it is Facebook that is choosing what to serve you, not an advertiser, who has no access to users or their data. It’s all just bits, it just so happens that some of those bits make Meta money. That, apparently, is the crime here (and a callback to the Google Shopping case)." Do you still think the EU is acting like a fair player? When in fact they are both a player and the referee? This type of behavior is exactly why there wont ever be any major innovation in the EU. And I live here btw.
surgical_fire 3y ago
> The EU's obsession with getting money from US tech companies is leading it down really dangerous paths. Gotta love the menacing language. If Meta is not happy with the fines they have multiple options: 1) Actually respect regulations. It's not that hard for a company with so many resources. 2) Stop operating in EU There is no dangerous path for the EU here. The block has the right to define it's regulations, and companies have to comply or be justly punished. That's all there is to it.
- zpeti 3y ago
  You can’t respect regulations that don’t exist yet. Yet that is what the EU is expecting. That’s my point. Just because someone is beating up on Facebook, which even I agree with, doesn’t mean any method is justified or is a good idea for the future.
  - raron 3y ago
    GDPR is in effect for 5 years, and it exists since 2016...
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    > You can’t respect regulations that don’t exist yet. Yet that is what the EU is expecting. GDPR is not new. It has existed for quite a while. Source: I live in the EU, and worked for companies that respect GDPR regulations, having participated in projects to comply with said regulations.
- raron 3y ago
  > 1) Actually respect regulations. It's not that hard for a company with so many resources. It is hard if your whole business model is the opposite of data protection :-)
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    This is the crux of the matter is it not? If that's the case, I hope EU keeps piling up on the fines against Facebook. Maybe it's a business that shouldn't exist on this side of the pond.

izacus 3y ago

If you look at the list of fines you'll see there's plenty domestic ones. You're just reading American media.

neximo64 3y ago
You can check out the list of fines here: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ If you took the top, single fine for one American company (Amazon). It is alone more than the sum of all domestic fines in all EU member states put together.
- Macha 3y ago
  How much bigger is Amazon than the largest EU company?
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    Bigger how? In terms of Irish revenue?
    - s_dev 3y ago
      GDPR fines can be based on global revenue.
      - bradleyjg 3y ago
        Which contributes to the impression that it’s a backdoor tariff.
        Macha 3y ago
        If it was based on local revenue, companies could easily structure it so that the regulation has no teeth.
        neximo64 3y ago

pjc50 3y ago

The only reason Apple is subject to the Irish DPA and not those of another country is they chose backdoor tax avoidance.

LunaSea 3y ago

Not like the US has been doing exactly this to European companies like Alstom, Alcatel, Technip & co. A bit rich.