EDIT: Also Jacques is not a Lawyer either.
The difference between actual experts and people like Jacques is that credible experts recognize the complexity and will be honest about it.
Granted, it’s in their interest to do so, but still, at least the better ones won’t lie and tell you it’s simple just because they wish it was.
Not to mention accusing you of bad intent and doing shady things if you don’t quickly agree that the law is perfectly clear and simple and that any compliance costs are worth it if you’re honest.
After all, only an evil person would avoid the EU market with the stated reason that the compliance costs seem too high or the law too vague, because random blogger Jacques already cleared that up for us :)
Or it could be a well meaning law, that has been drafted in good faith to incrementally extend an existing directive, one that IMHO has worked rather well up to the point that organisations outside of the EU have felt they can ignore it, even when acting in EU countries. GDPR is certainly making overseas firms take our laws seriously now...
It has been mentioned a number of times, but EU law is principles-based not rules-based like in the US. I can see how it might appear vague to US eyes, but to my eyes I see a flexible law that will live on while the technology changes. I also felt it was written in plain, straight-forward language, and not poorly-written at all, I personally can live without 'here-on-ins'.
I guess if I lived in the US and had a similar law, and had US prosecutors I might be scared, but the law of European countries has survived on being principle based rather longer than the US has existed. I once had to compare and contrast both systems for an exam, and of course they both work in practice! I note however that Europe is a much less litigious place than the US, and I personally prefer that.
My real issue with the law is primarily that the EU thinks that it can assert that it has global jurisdiction with regard to the GDPR. This is so undemocratic and dangerous, it boggles my mind that fans of the GDPR can’t see it. Just because you like the intent of the law doesn’t mean you can admit that it goes too far, or sets bad precedent, or is likely to be abused.
If Saudi Arabia passes anti-blasphemy laws and says they apply globally if a citizen of theirs visits your website, should anyone care?
GDPR is being taken seriously by firms with enforcement exposure. My hope is that every other organization in the world just ignores it. It’s a dangerous precedent.
And then there’s my issue with the fans of the law who will read the above and come back with the vapid response: “well, if you’re not going to comply then clearly you’re shady and I hope you do go out of business.”
If you have a legal or business presence in the EU, you will be affected, because that puts you inside the EU jurisdiction.
Note that Facebook/Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/Samsung/etc have a substantial presence in the EU; employees, offices, shops, data-centers, customers, which is why they are affected by the GDPR, and the EU is giving them the choice to either comply, or pull out.
If you have a small business in the US, you can safely ignore the GDPR, because there are no avenues of enforcement against you, because you're not inside the jurisdiction. Non-US companies get sued in US courts all the time, and nothing comes of that either.
> If Saudi Arabia passes anti-blasphemy laws and says they apply globally if a citizen of theirs visits your website, should anyone care?
Everyone doing business with Saudi Arabia should care. Is this not self-evident to you?
If only this were true. Under the GDPR, an EU resident sending their info to me anywhere else in the world apparently constitutes me doing business in the EU in their eyes. That’s their claim of global jurisdiction.
Fortunately, they can’t actually enforce this, so I’ll be ignoring it, just like I would for Saudi Arabian anti-blasphemy laws.
Yes! That is exactly the right position to take as a US company!
Anyone claiming differently is most probably peddling snake-oil in the form of "GDPR compliance".
Personally I think it's an excellent attempt to bring some sanity back to our online privacy. It's perfectly readable and understandable by an individual. Though of course it's not perfect. What is?
It's been fascinating and extremely educational to see in the numerous HN discussions how many from the US are managing to view it from entirely the opposite point of view.
Maybe it reads fine if you are a "data subject" (i hate this term btw) , but if you actually need to comply its hard, even for the simple stuff that every website has. E.g. cookies, advertising, backups
I 'm not even sure if the data subject can figure out what to expect from GDPR. E.g. Is HN compliant? Can you tell if a website you visited today is compliant?
Yes, you all keep saying that, often while tripping over each other with contradictory explanations of when it applies and how to interpret it. Yes, truly well-written and not vague at all.
That appears to be a baseless comment.
> It's a protectionist law
Or another way to look at it the US tech sector is no longer going to pick and choose which of our laws apply to it.
I'm intrigued. How is it baseless to say that a given EU country, say Germany, would not see a massive inflow of foreign money and a bunch of hobbled foreign competitors of German companies if they chose to engage in aggressive enforcement of GDPR against foreign companies?
See also the answer to when you asked 17 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17005603
Please link to the specific law that exists outside the GDPR that requires such warnings. It has to be written somewhere...you (and other fans of GDPR) keep making this argument, so such a law must exist. The "answer" you linked to was just more of the same stuff you keep spouting, not a written law. If I can see such a law in the "old and large legal framework" you GDPR fans keep referring to that is somehow supposed to protect us from abuses, I'll happily admit that I'm wrong.
You're no doubt going to tell me that's far too vague and woolly. So this link might give you a flavour of how EU fundamental principles[1] came about from a bunch of centuries old separate national legal systems:
http://blogs.northampton.ac.uk/law/2015/11/02/proportionalit...
Just a random result on first page - there may be better or more easily readable sources.
That proportionality applies to everything in EU law, and there have been numerous cases through the courts, national Judicial Review, and taking cases to the EU Courts of Justice. The principle is firmly enshrined.
As with anything human mistakes are made, so of course there are appeals from time to time. That's how case law gets made.
[0] http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/49-principles-l... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_principles_of_European...
Again the problem is that this is in the eye of the beholder. With 20 million euro maximum fines, it would be easy to say that 100k euros is proportional for the lowest levels of offenses - after all, its only 0.5% of the maximum. But that would still kill most small businesses.
Regardless, it’s pointless to argue since GDPR is here in about 36 hours, and we will all get to witness its wrath - hopefully from the sidelines. I think that within a year, most US based websites will have closed their doors to EU residents, which may be the worst aspect of this for both the EU and the US. It’s sad, but nobody - even sites with the best of intentions - can take on the liability of potential 20M euro fines, regardless of what you say the odds are of those actually being handed out.
> I think that within a year, most US based websites will have closed their doors to EU residents
I would be astonished if that is the case. If it shuts out those not willing to play nicer with data and privacy - great! Even if that ultimately includes Facebook.
Every small business within the EU is adopting this "potential liability" without any signs of a rush to relocate outside the EU or shutting down.
But what irritates me a lot more is the many GDPR fans here who not just disagree with this assessment but accuse the other side of ill intent.
It’s disgusting to call people evil and shady because they are uncomfortable with relying on the voluntary goodwill of some faceless overseas bureaucrat that they did not elect and who has been given the power of life and death over one’s livelihood. 99% of people here who have concerns don’t want to violate user privacy, but this law is so shitty that they don’t even know how to comply. And every single thread is packed with people exclaiming that it’s so obvious and easy, while all spouting totally different and contradictory advice. What a shitshow.
Sarbanes-Oxley in particular is much more draconian than any UK corporate law, and this is a barrier to me coming and breaking the law in the US, so you should change that too.
I didn't vote for your overseas faceless bureaucrat either, so I can I treat US law as optional?
Sorry Team America, you don't get to choose our laws
I didn’t elect these governments, I don’t know them or trust them, and I don’t know or trust you either.
I don’t trust unaccountable power as a general rule.
I think this is a huge strawman argument that you've constructed and hinged your entire line of reasoning on.
The EU claims jurisdiction over EU businesses. The reason very large US businesses are caring about GDPR, is because they are multinational businesses with a significant presence in the EU, i.e. they are also EU businesses. And if you're doing business in a country, you have to comply with local law. There's nothing new or weird or over-reaching about that.
When Facebook constructs a data center somewhere in the EU, the local Facebook subsidiary has to comply with local zoning laws, building codes, and labour laws.
When Facebook gathers personal data about EU citizens, the local Facebook subsidiaries have to comply with local privacy laws.
Note that Facebook isn't extending the GDPR protections to non-EU users, because it doesn't have to! It only has to extend GDPR protections to EU users, if they wish to keep their European subsidiaries.
So of course you are being downvoted.