News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Austria's data protection authority has found that Google... by Macha on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @07:52AM (#29992952)
EU laws come in a couple of variants. The most common is a directive which is basically "Your country needs to pass a law to achieve X, Y, Z", and this is where you get larger country to country differences in interpretation. The GDPR is instead a regulation. That means it's literally the same law (and theoretically, the same standards) that applies EU wide. So the US equivalent would be a court in Texas finding something to be illegal under a federal law. What does that mean for the same action in california? It's probably illegal there too, but it could still be tested if someone wanted to try their luck.

So that means the current status is that's precedent a court in another EU country would strongly consider but technically could come to a different decision on and in either case the losing party has the option of appealing to the EU level.

Re:Austria's data protection authority has found that Google... by d1sxeyes on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @08:05AM (#29993077)
That's not quite right. This ruling is not the precedent, the Schrems II ruling is the precedent. This is just a court determining that Schrems is in fact relevant precedent in this specific case, and finding based on that.