If you want to simplify the system, lobby for multiple nations to adopt a good standard, or move on.
Don't want to comply? Don't accept users from that country. That's the reality of a multi-national...
Yes, if you want to provide services on the Internet and don't want to comply with the laws of some countries, then you have to make sure you don't provide services to those users.
You see it all the time in copyright related situations, where companies lack the rights to distribute something in certain countries -- so, Spotify doesn't work in every country, for example. Neither does Amazon Prime Video. Netflix has a different selection in each country it operates in, and is also not available in every country.
What's the difference?
Perhaps you meant to say that other countries shouldn't enforce their laws just because you communicate with their residents?
That's especially true here in Spain where SMS prices dropped long after 3G appeared. There's even road/trafic signs showing Whatsapp's dominance.
http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/sociedad/noticias/6600084/0...
http://www.stateofdigital.com/marketer-understand-acquisitio...
Is such a clause enforceable and/or valid? How could the EU punish a non-EU business for violating this? I guess they could block/get an injunction against them within the EU, but that seems like the sort of thing that would get challenged legally.
Any non-EU business worth enforcing such a law against will very likely do business inside the EU (e.g. selling ads to local companies). Any money transferred can then be froozen to enforce this law.
Facebook in particular does business as an Irish company for its EU users, so no problem at all here.
Respecting local regulations is not a mind blowing fact. A foreign company cannot sell heroin in the USA under the pretext it is legal in their country.
I know it's an extreme case, but yeah, of course countries expect people who do business in them to respect their laws.
Hang on. You're GIVING it the data. People want "free" services, so I'm genuinely curious what people actually expect is going to happen when they use WhatsApp. Is it just something provided benevolently? How does WhatsApp make money? Are people really so ignorant to think that they can get a free lunch?
There's an implied quid pro quo -- you use a free service in exchange for providing data used to sell you products from advertisers.
You want to protect your privacy? Stop using so-called "free" services where you are the product.
Why should this even need regulation? People are making a choice to use Facebook/WA when they could be using conventional SMS or iMessage. But they get mad about paying for SMS -- so they trade privacy for "free." That's on the user. Who's supposed to pay for WhatsApp to run? Other than the early days when people paid $1/€1, it's free to users. Who pays for it?
> having employees in our countries
So providing jobs is a bad thing? What's the unemployment rate in France? It's over 10%. It seems like FB/etc. are actually providing a benefit to the country. Those employees also pay taxes, and buy stuff, thus benefiting the economy. You should be glad they have employees in those countries. I'm sure the employees are glad to have a job!
> owning property in our countries
And paying property tax. And making improvements. And attracting further economic development.
> owning critical infrastructure in our countries
?? They don't own the phone companies -- it's people's choice to not use conventional SMS, but conventional SMS and phone lines still exist. WhatsApp is hardly 'critical'. Any nontrivial use of WhatsApp (i.e. by emergency services) is just stupid. That's on the population, not the fault of Facebook and friends.
And yet, this now happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
---
The regulation applies if the data controller (an organization that collects data from EU residents) or processor (an organization that processes data on behalf of data controller e.g. cloud service providers) or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. Furthermore the regulation also applies to organizations based outside the European Union if they collect or process personal data of EU residents. According to the European Commission "personal data is any information relating to an individual, whether it relates to his or her private, professional or public life. It can be anything from a name, a home address, a photo, an email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical information, or a computer’s IP address."
---
The US doesn't sue foreign pot shops because the sale happens abroad and they have decided to not bother with that but they absolutely could enacted such a law if they wanted. Who is there to stop them? The US actually does apply some of its laws abroad. Here is an example that is similar to yours https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/as-us-prosecutes-...
Again, the problem is only enforceability. If they can't get hold of any money, a verdict is useless.
Some day you’ll wake up, and notice all your corporate bank accounts are empty and frozen.
* It was never about all cookies. It was about 3rd party cookies.
* An agreement was only necessary if you were transferring a user's private data to a 3rd party.
It was a huge privacy leak. The EU tried to shut it down, so the world's corporations decided to keep doing what they were doing without changing a thing, whilst mocking cookies, and by proxy, the user's whose data they were fleecing.
That's a very interesting quote from Facebook, and explains why the GDPR has a special section explaining that it also applies to foreign companies that process data of EU citizen.
In general, Facebook is trying to set a dangerous precedent here. A company operating in our countries, taking our data, owning property in our countries, having employees in our countries, owning critical infrastructure in our countries (WhatsApp has basically replaced SMS and other messaging infrastructure), yet refusing to acknowledge the laws of the countries they operate in.