There's an asymmetry of information and power in the relationship between a business and a citizen. Governments, generally, attempt to mitigate this asymmetry. Hence, we have consumer protection laws, GDPR and the likes.

While these solutions may be incomplete, or imperfect, having none is definitely worse.

> If someone from the EU leaves the EU digitally to buy something in another country, it isn't up to the seller to enforce EU rules.

> Unless you have an entity (either yourself or your business) under EU jurisdiction, you don't have to follow their rules.

Please _do_ read the link I already posted in a previous comment [0]. It clarifies many things, but I don't want to paste too much content here.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. I am not making any moral claim about whether a GDPR-type regulation is good or bad. I am simply saying that the EU saying the law applies outside their borders doesn’t make it so.

If I am a US citizen living and working in the US, and break the GDPR by storing data illegally from visitors to my website from the EU, the EU can certainly try to fine me or issue a summons or whatever they want to do.

However, there exists no extradition treaty for this law, and there would be no way for the EU to enforce judgement.

Yeah, this is the really frustrating thing about conversations about the GDPR: whatever you think about how companies should act, legislation doesn’t really matter unless there’s some way the government can take retributive action against those who ignore it. When someone asks about what this mechanism is, you inevitably get a whole host of people assuming you dislike the legislation.

This article basically confirms my suspicion that this provision is basically unenforceable:

http://slawsonandslawson.com/article-32-the-hole-in-the-gdpr...