5 ms·

> I'm curious how enforced that law actually is. Enforcement of the anti-bribery laws isn't really targeted at individuals traveling for fun. It is more meant

by shkkmo 2y ago

> I'm curious how enforced that law actually is. Enforcement of the anti-bribery laws isn't really targeted at individuals traveling for fun. It is more meant to stop businesses from bribing officials. > this is significantly more narrow in scope than the EU law which applies to anyone running a site that an EU citizen visits. If you are looking for broad scopes, copyright and espionage are both areas where the US asserts it's right to prosecute non-citizens for acts committed outside the country. For specific high-profile examples, look at Kim DotCom and Julian Assange. In the age of the internet, pretty much every country would like to be able to prosecute non-citizens for acts they commit while outside the country. Hackers, scammers and fraudsters frequently commit crimes against citizens of other countries and the countries where the victims reside have a clear interest in prosecuting those criminals. The limitations of doing so depends on their ability to get that criminal expedited. With this understanding, the EU laws aren't really any different.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
> Enforcement of the anti-bribery laws isn't really targeted at individuals traveling for fun. It is more meant to stop businesses from bribing officials. That's fair enough. But then it isn't really comparable, is it? If I host a site for fun in the US that targets as much data as I can about EU citizens and targets EU citizens but doesn't break any US laws, I would still be targeted, right? Not to mention, bribery is likely illegal in all or at least most countries. > If you are looking for broad scopes, copyright and espionage are both areas where the US asserts it's right to prosecute non-citizens for acts committed outside the country. These still are not good examples. Every country has laws to prosecute spies, and copyright has numerous international treaties. These areas still don't compare, at all, to the EU saying EU law applies to anyone in any country if a EU citizen visits it and the site collects their data and targets them in a way Europe doesn't like. > With this understanding, the EU laws aren't really any different. You say in the age of the internet a lot of countries would like to persecute people outside their borders for offenses that take place, to some extent, in their borders. The thing is, the EU is the first to actually claim the power to do so. The other examples you or anyone else gives just don't map for one reason or another.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > These still are not good examples. Every country has laws to prosecute spies, and copyright has numerous international treaties. You are just moving the goal post yet again. I fail to see any difference between laws that govern forieng citizens movement of copyright data and laws that govern foriegn citizens movement of private data. If anything, I think privacy laws are MORE ethically defensible than copyright laws since they tend to protect the powerless against the powerful rather than vice versa > The thing is, the EU is the first to actually claim the power to do so Again you are saying things that have been already shown to not be true.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    > You are just moving the goal post yet again. No, I'm not. I've been consistent from the start. Seriously, go look at my earlier replies. All your examples are either laws that have treaties backing them, or don't apply to most people, or only apply in very specific circumstances. None of them, absolutely NONE, are as far-reaching as the EU law. The EU claims it applies to ANY entity in ANY country so long as ANY EU citizen visits, and that entity collected data and targeted EU citizens in a way the EU didn't like. That's what makes it different. That isn't moving the goal posts, that's pointing out very clearly that this apple very clearly isn't like your orange. > Again you are saying things that have been already shown to not be true. Only if you remove all relevant details that show everything I've said is absolutely correct. Enough with the tribalism. There is no shame in admitting the EU made a far-reaching law, a first of its kind, that it has no hope of enforcing.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > Seriously, go look at my earlier replies. I did, you mentioned 'treaties' for the first time in your last comment. The ability of the USA to prosecute Kim DotCom didn't depend on any treaty. The extradition process did, but that is a question of custody. In addition, there ARE numerous trade treaties that cover privacy, the right of countries to implement privacy regulation on international trade and specific protections that allow data exportation from the EU. > The EU claims it applies to ANY entity in ANY country so long as ANY EU citizen visits, and that entity collected data and targeted EU citizens in a way the EU didn't like. This is false. The entity has to be based in the EU or be offering goods and services to people in the EU to have the GDPR apply. > There is no shame in admitting the EU made a far-reaching law, a first of its kind, that it has no hope of enforcing. While it is a far reaching law, it is not the first of it's kind and there are thousands of fines and penalties issued under it each year. > Only if you remove all relevant details that show everything I've said is absolutely correct. I've already provided several examples that disprove your statment. The "relevant details" are the qualifications that you keep making up but conviently still leave off when making your false claims. You've said so many false things throughout your comments, starting with the "US law as written is entirely reasonable and doesn't try to claim the law applies to US citizens anywhere in the world." which you even doubled down on with a double "absolutely" when I first called you on it. At this point, I suggest you put far more effort into verifying the accuracy of what you say or nobody will take anything you say seriously. I certainly don't anymore.

by shkkmo 2y ago

DEADMINCE 2y ago

> Enforcement of the anti-bribery laws isn't really targeted at individuals traveling for fun. It is more meant to stop businesses from bribing officials. That's fair enough. But then it isn't really comparable, is it? If I host a site for fun in the US that targets as much data as I can about EU citizens and targets EU citizens but doesn't break any US laws, I would still be targeted, right? Not to mention, bribery is likely illegal in all or at least most countries. > If you are looking for broad scopes, copyright and espionage are both areas where the US asserts it's right to prosecute non-citizens for acts committed outside the country. These still are not good examples. Every country has laws to prosecute spies, and copyright has numerous international treaties. These areas still don't compare, at all, to the EU saying EU law applies to anyone in any country if a EU citizen visits it and the site collects their data and targets them in a way Europe doesn't like. > With this understanding, the EU laws aren't really any different. You say in the age of the internet a lot of countries would like to persecute people outside their borders for offenses that take place, to some extent, in their borders. The thing is, the EU is the first to actually claim the power to do so. The other examples you or anyone else gives just don't map for one reason or another.

shkkmo 2y ago
> These still are not good examples. Every country has laws to prosecute spies, and copyright has numerous international treaties. You are just moving the goal post yet again. I fail to see any difference between laws that govern forieng citizens movement of copyright data and laws that govern foriegn citizens movement of private data. If anything, I think privacy laws are MORE ethically defensible than copyright laws since they tend to protect the powerless against the powerful rather than vice versa > The thing is, the EU is the first to actually claim the power to do so Again you are saying things that have been already shown to not be true.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  > You are just moving the goal post yet again. No, I'm not. I've been consistent from the start. Seriously, go look at my earlier replies. All your examples are either laws that have treaties backing them, or don't apply to most people, or only apply in very specific circumstances. None of them, absolutely NONE, are as far-reaching as the EU law. The EU claims it applies to ANY entity in ANY country so long as ANY EU citizen visits, and that entity collected data and targeted EU citizens in a way the EU didn't like. That's what makes it different. That isn't moving the goal posts, that's pointing out very clearly that this apple very clearly isn't like your orange. > Again you are saying things that have been already shown to not be true. Only if you remove all relevant details that show everything I've said is absolutely correct. Enough with the tribalism. There is no shame in admitting the EU made a far-reaching law, a first of its kind, that it has no hope of enforcing.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > Seriously, go look at my earlier replies. I did, you mentioned 'treaties' for the first time in your last comment. The ability of the USA to prosecute Kim DotCom didn't depend on any treaty. The extradition process did, but that is a question of custody. In addition, there ARE numerous trade treaties that cover privacy, the right of countries to implement privacy regulation on international trade and specific protections that allow data exportation from the EU. > The EU claims it applies to ANY entity in ANY country so long as ANY EU citizen visits, and that entity collected data and targeted EU citizens in a way the EU didn't like. This is false. The entity has to be based in the EU or be offering goods and services to people in the EU to have the GDPR apply. > There is no shame in admitting the EU made a far-reaching law, a first of its kind, that it has no hope of enforcing. While it is a far reaching law, it is not the first of it's kind and there are thousands of fines and penalties issued under it each year. > Only if you remove all relevant details that show everything I've said is absolutely correct. I've already provided several examples that disprove your statment. The "relevant details" are the qualifications that you keep making up but conviently still leave off when making your false claims. You've said so many false things throughout your comments, starting with the "US law as written is entirely reasonable and doesn't try to claim the law applies to US citizens anywhere in the world." which you even doubled down on with a double "absolutely" when I first called you on it. At this point, I suggest you put far more effort into verifying the accuracy of what you say or nobody will take anything you say seriously. I certainly don't anymore.