A country can ban a service when it doesn't follow its laws, there isn't anything crazy about it
It's more like not allowing you to smoke weed you bought in Amsterdam if you already came back to Italy
Something being legal somewhere doesn't mean it's legal everywhere
> When I connect to a service in the US, my bits are traveling there
Well yeah, that's like exactly the issue they're pointing out ...
EU user data can't be stored in the US.
India also tried to push for data locality (though I think they went back on that)
"No weed for me thanks, I don't wanna take any chances. I'll stick to the cocaine tonight"
"Custom officers can subject travellers to a drug screening test at the point of entry to Singapore. If you test positive for drugs, you can be arrested and prosecuted, even if the drugs were consumed prior to your arrival in the country."
That's insanity.
It sounds insane to you because you’re used to the filth we live in and don’t even see the decay that’s all around us anymore. Crime and violence are normal in our world and a government that won’t tolerate it is a foreign concept.
They seem pretty far from the Scandinavian countries.
Besides, I'd find it hard to trust any results from a totalitarian country.
> It sounds insane to you because you’re used to the filth we live in and don’t even see the decay that’s all around us anymore. Crime and violence are normal in our world and a government that won’t tolerate it is a foreign concept.
There are plenty of civilized countries with low crime rates that are not totalitarian.
As for crime, European and American crime is dramatically higher. Europe has literal “no go zones”. Can you imagine that? That in your country there are places your government can’t ensure safety? That it is effectively ruled by a 3rd party?
That’s Europe and America. Singapore doesn’t have that problem.
Euros are very arrogant and Americans are chauvinists though so it’s hard to see.
Suicide was decriminalised in Singapore with the passing of the Criminal Law Reform Bill on 6 May 2019.
Before that, Section 309 of the Penal Code stated that "Whoever attempts to commit suicide, and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."[13] The section was rarely enforced, between 2013 and 2015, only 0.6% of reported cases was brought to court.[
Makes you really think about executing your idea successfully. And also probably no point i hoping for suicide prevention hotline.
That's deplorable.
Suicide rate doesn't measure anything except suicide rate. The happiness index and other studies are very thorough in what they measure, and choose things common to all cultures.
Bizarre to be defending a totalitarian regime because you have no crime. I guess you really think the means justify the ends, maybe because you don't realize the level of compromise.
whats with this reddit-tier hyperbole? These comments are seriously out of touch, it comes off as trolling.
They charge people coming into their country if they have weed in their system (or their law allows them to and it seems they enforce it enough that countries warn their citizens), breaking no law in their country, and quite likely adhering to the law in their country of origin.
They make suicide illegal and PUNISH peoples attempts at it.
You don't think those two points alone (without even bothing to list additional obscene laws) are INSANE? Do you really want to defend them?
Singaporean law forbids their citizens and residents from using drugs in other countries. So if a Singapore resident goes to Amsterdam or Portland and smokes a joint there, they are complying with local laws but still breaking Singaporean laws. Laws with this sort of extraterritorial jurisdiction aren't without precedent. Particularly, other countries, like the US, UK and many others, have similar laws concerning some forms of sex tourism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
> Just because it might be a very pleasant place to live doesn't mean it isn't also totalitarian.
With that I agree, but I think a better word to describe Singapore is 'authoritarian.' Totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism, in which the government exercises a near total control over every aspect of your life. Singapore regulates many aspects of their citizens lives, as do all functional governments to at least some degree, but I think it falls short of totalitarianism.
The problem is with that law being applied to non-residents. If Singapore wants to police it's citizens lik that, it's fine.
But to arrest a Canadian because they smoked weed a couple of days before arriving at Singpore customs, where it's legal in Montreal where they were?
> With that I agree, but I think a better word to describe Singapore is 'authoritarian.'
Another user pointed that out and I agree entirely. I exaggerated/resorted to hyperbole more than intended.
Re sucide: you should probably fact check that, because the criminality of suicide was recently repealed in Singapore.
But even if it wasnt, I find your stance hyperbolic considering lots of countries still criminalize suicide. Places in the U.S. considered suicide criminal all the way up to the 90s.
I'm not dictating, I'm disaproving.
Sovereign nations can indeed have whatever laws they want, and I don't have to go there but I can continue to speak out against bad and unjust laws as I see it.
> I find your stance hyperbolic considering lots of countries still criminalize suicide.
If that's true, that's ignorance on my part.
Don't go to Singapore if you like drugs. How hard can that be? I've been not going to Singapore my entire life.
That's not a bad analogy, except many countries won't let you in if you have a felony on your record. That isn't that unusual.
Singapore is going to arrest people for breaking no rule in their home country, and not for breaking any rules within the country, but simply for showing up at the door because you smoked weed before the 21 hour flight?
I mean, you're right I won't go because I think it's a crappy country, but that doesn't mean I still can't disprove I want to work towards a world where no country has shitty laws like that..
assuming that what you value is the only right option - who's the chauvinist here?
And yes, democracy can be authoritarian as well. The problem is that if the government controls public discourse to a sufficient extent, any democracy becomes a sham no matter how fair elections themselves are.
Is an authoritarian Brave New World ok as long as people living in it are reportedly happy?
People who live in countries were you get executed on a whim tend to say that.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/13/singapore-tightening-scr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/opinion/fake-news-law-sin...
The impression one gets by being there is that it’s a plasticised city inhabited by consumer drones. They also cane people for misdemeanours. Oh, and the migrant workers (on which their whole economy relies) routinely work 18h/day.
There are billions of people who would love to live there.
If you don't ruffle any feathers and you have a well-paid job your life in Singapore would probably be pretty fine. However 30C year round might be a little bit repetitive.
Now we're back in the states we hit the vape quite often but didn't need it in SG. No place has everything.
* inappropriate masculine behaviour
* using foul language
Dafuq?
European data, European rules.
I'm still waiting to see how well that holds up in court.
It’s trying to regulate the data collection and processing of users in its territory.
On the other hand, CLOUD act was trying to regulate data on foreign servers.
This isn't just my take by the way, it's common knowledge and was the cause for much discussion and speculation.
Companies can either adapt to the ruling or take their business elsewhere.
No one claimed otherwise.
It's still fascinating (and, I believe, a first) that the EU thinks they have extraterritorial jurisdiction just because their citizens are affected.
In general countries may well claim that their law applies even if you believe it doesn't, you then break that law at your own risk, and given that the penalties can be pretty serious I would caution against this without having consulted with a lawyer.
Note that I'm perfectly fine with the EU protecting the rights of its citizens, being one of those myself, and that I'm also perfectly fine with the US protecting the rights of its citizens.
I'm a bit weirded out by how the US taxes its nationals even when they live abroad but if that's the law then that's how it is for now.
So what? We're discussing the GDPR. Pretty sure the US has no similar law at all. GDPR was considered a first.
> In general countries may well claim that their law applies even if you believe it doesn't, you then break that law at your own risk
You're trying to compare GDPR to general prinicples and it doesn't work. GDPR was a new type of law.
See https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/risk/articles/gdpr-ext...
"Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU."
Yeah, that's unprecedented.
https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
> You're trying to compare GDPR to general prinicples and it doesn't work. GDPR was a new type of law.
No, it's a law like every other. You abide by it or you end up dealing with the business end.
> "Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU."
> Yeah, that's unprecedented.
No, it isn't unprecedented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf...
And that's before we get to AML and ATF legislation that the US has enacted and basically enforced all of the world of finance.
a) it's not similar because it's not extraterritorial and b) it's not the US at the federal level.
> No, it's a law like every other.
At this point you seem to be being wilfully ignorant. It's great you want to defend the EU (I assume you are European), but pointing out the GDPR is overreach is not an attack, and you don't need to try and point fingers and find something the US is doing that you think is similar.
> No, it isn't unprecedented.
Yes, it is, and you clearly don't know what you are talking about here and are just being defensive for god knows why.
Many, many experts and big firms like PwC are calling it unprecedented. Because it is.
Ok, we're done here.
You're ignoring the letter of the law, ignoring context and nuance, making unfounded claims and providing links that don't support your points at all.
Then maybe you should consult the guidelines.
And if someone is continuing to ignore facts and claim clearly false things as you were, what is the polite way to point that out?
edit: your original claim-
> GDPR tries to enforce its rules on servers outside of its territory.
It's enforcing rules on data sent to/from people in the EU and the servers (not just servers ofc), i.e. on companies offering their services to people in the EU. If the companies don't wish to follow the laws of a specific country (or in this case, all EU countries), they're welcome to not provide services to those users.
Since you seem to think the example they gave doesn't count because it's a Californian law not federal (not sure why that matters...), how about stuff like "The FTC engages with competition and consumer protection agencies in other countries to halt deceptive and anticompetitive business practices that affect U.S. consumers." ( https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international ) which includes laws such as COPPA ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_... )
Or let's say there's a country in Europe where hacking and ransomeware are completely legal, and a company in that country focussed their ransomeware efforts on attacking American companies. Would you argue that either the USA wouldn't care about that because it's outside their jurisdiction, or that they shouldn't care because it's outside their jurisdiction?
The facts are as follows:
1. GDPR asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is clearly documented and is within the text of the act itself.
2. This is unprecedented. There is no other law from any (lets say first world) country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to anywhere even close to the GDPR.
I've provided links for both of these claims.
jacquesm is arguing against both of those facts, claiming they are not in fact true, and linking to US laws trying to state that are the same thing, when they are not even close.
> It's enforcing rules on data sent to/from people in the EU and the servers (not just servers ofc), i.e. on companies offering their services to people in the EU.
Quoting from an earlier link I posted:
"Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU."
The point is that that Chinese web shop can provide services to EU citizens, and the EU has no way of enforcing any aspect of the GDPR on that Chinese webs hop, and I'm pretty sure China would be the first to tell you the GDPR does not apply within its borders.
> If the companies don't wish to follow the laws of a specific country (or in this case, all EU countries), they're welcome to not provide services to those users.
In this case, the company could be following the laws in their home country, and be in violation of the GDPR just because an EU citizen bought something from them.
In this case, the EU is responsible for blocking the website, rather than the website needing to be in compliance with the GDPR.
Here's an example of that not being true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload
Or a more recent example that's related to financial/fraud regulations rather than copyright law, look at the FTX / Sam Bankman-Fried situation. Being registered in the Bahamas didn't make what FTX was doing to US customers any less illegal in the eyes of the US justice system.
Or, I mentioned COPPA earlier, and that's been enforced at least once against a Chinese company - https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/largest-f...
That's not an example at all. I'm talking specifics here. The GDPR is the first law of it's kind that just outright asserts jurisdiction anywhere, as long as the origin took some data from an EU citizen. That is absolutely unprecedented. I'm not aware of any remotely similar law in commerce or communications in any other country.
Megaupload is about an international seizure of a specific company, not farreaching broad open-ended legislation.
COPPA only applies domestically, and is significantly more narrow in scope. I know wiki says the FTC asserts it has international reach, but the actual text of the legislation (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...) says no such thing, and the wiki says that opinion isn't taken seriously.
Also, in the case of Bytedance, they have a US presence which is why they were able to be sued in a US court: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.37...
So yeah, I would still say it's unprecedented, I really can't see how there is anything similar.
I will say I feel you are missing my point, and that you are claiming things like COPPA are equivalent because you are at a higher level of abstraction. When you get more specific, you will see that I am correct.
Cheers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction#...
GDPR asserts that anyone anywhere in the world must adhere to the GDPR if any EU citizens supply data to them. I'm not aware of any remotely similar laws in commerce or communications in any other country.
> GDPR tries to enforce its rules on servers outside of its territory.
Which you then clarified to
> It's still fascinating (and, I believe, a first) that the EU thinks they have extraterritorial jurisdiction just because their citizens are affected.
So it would appear as if your argument is:
GDPR is unique, because it exerts extraterritorial jurisdiction over servers whenever EU citizens are affected.
But then people inform you that the US does not allow servers in other countries to store the data (i.e. PII) of children under 13 unless adhering to a strict legal framework. COPPA : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_...
However, you won't relent. In the latest iteration of your argument you claim:
> I mean specifically in the way GDPR does it.
which you specify to mean
>GDPR asserts that anyone anywhere in the world must adhere to the GDPR if any EU citizens supply data to them. I'm not aware of any remotely similar laws in commerce or communications in any other country.
And in another comment write:
>Also, in the case of Bytedance, they have a US presence which is why they were able to be sued in a US court: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.37...
But you never ask yourself WHY ByteDance has a US presence in the first place? We could ask similar questions: Why does Facebook have a EU presence (on Ireland), why does Google?
I can concede that maybe I have not expressed myself well or articulated my points clearly. Allow me to try and clarify.
> GDPR is unique, because it exerts extraterritorial jurisdiction over servers whenever EU citizens are affected.
It's not simply the extraterritorial jurisdiction, it's that combined with how far-reaching and broad the GDPR is. The other examples people have given were either a seizure after an act was committed via a court order, or far more narrow in scope.
> However, you won't relent
Regarding COPPA, I provided references showing that a) the legislation itself does not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction in the way the GDPR does, b) that the wiki claims the FTC asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction but I can find no actual link to the FTC asserting that, and c) that legal scholars and the legal community seems to be of the opinion that COPPA is only applies domestically.
Why should I relent when those points show that COPPA is indeed quite different from GDPR? What's the flaw in my reasoning here?
> But you never ask yourself WHY ByteDance has a US presence in the first place? We could ask similar questions: Why does Facebook have a EU presence (on Ireland), why does Google?
But that's the point! The US sued someone via COPPA when they had a US presence, and it was in a US court. There was nothing extraterritorial about it!
GDPR is saying they could take action against one lone Chinese person operating a small business from home within China, someone who has never even left China, just because they collected data on someone in France.
That's frankly ridiculous, and I maintain, unprecedented.
The flaw, in my view, is that you begin with something that sounds very general (GDPR is the first extraterritorial law!!) and wind up defending a very particular and narrow statement which is appears distant from your starting position (GDPR is the first extraterritorial law that targets SERVERS).
>GDPR is saying they could take action against one lone Chinese person operating a small business from home within China, someone who has never even left China, just because they collected data on someone in France.
Personally I wouldn't base my interpretation of a complex, and to a large extend untested, international law on some document from a international conglomerate (i.e. Deloitte). I would ask myself, if there are any ulterior motives (i.e. profit) that might be biasing their view.
NB: Biased information != False information.
Besides, they are not saying anything that any other reputable source isn't also saying.
If I want to sell data in the EU, I can. I'm not subject to their laws unless I have a presence there.
GDPR tries to change that.
See https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/risk/articles/gdpr-ext...
This is more like me deciding to try and sue people in other countries because they said something I didn't like on the internet.
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/international-t...
I'll wait to see how it holds up when the EU tries to enforce it against a US website with no presence of any kind in the EU.
That's called moving the goalposts.
But even in that case: the EU has a lot of power and no matter what you are still required to have a legal presence in the EU if you want to serve EU customers. Breaking the law is generally not the best course of action for any company that wants to stay in business over the longer term.
No, it isn't. That's the test.
> no matter what you are still required to have a legal presence in the EU if you want to serve EU customers.
That's nonsense. There is nothing stopping EU citizens from buying something via my US based website while they are in the EU, and I have no obligation to have any kind of presence in the EU.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/dp-at-the-end-of-the-tr...
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-27-gdpr/
You seem to be arguing from how you believe it should work or how you think it works without knowing how it actually works, which is quite important when you are operating a business.
Practicality > useless laws
The Deloitte page I linked to gives a Chinese web store located in China with no EU presence as an example.
It's bonkers that the EU thinks they can enforce their laws in a situation like that. But then, that's why it hasn't been tested.
It's basically a 'feel good' law with no teeth (at least the extraterritorial aspects).
It will drive Europe to a sort of digital isolationism where offshore companies will either a) dismiss and continue b) cease operations there.
I think it's like I said, it's a lot of "feel good" laws.
> It will drive Europe to a sort of digital isolationism where offshore companies will either a) dismiss and continue b) cease operations there.
I think it's more likely the US adopts a softer version of the GDPR, and it will be the EU and the US and the Commonwealth countries vs pretty much other more restricted Internet 'islands'.
I really hope we have a working decentralized alternative before that happens. It's something I want to start contributing to later this year, because I think it really needs to be a priority.
You're out of your depth in this discussion. I'm not sure why you take me pointing out that truth of the matter that the GDPR is unprecedented in it's extraterritoriality as an attack, but it's not. This mistake is clouding all of your replies and input into this discussion.
I'm fully aware of the law. That's what has been being discussed up until this point, even if you were not aware of it.
> You seem to be arguing from how you believe it should work or how you think it works without knowing how it actually works, which is quite important when you are operating a business.
No, I'm arguing that the GDPR is unprecedented, and EU has tried to claim jurisdiction that they simply can't enforce.
If you believe otherwise, that's fine, but I'm done with this discussion anyway. I deal in facts, not denial and fantasy.
A good business venture would be a VPN service for euros paid only via bitcoin.
And then if EU users want to, they will just bypass that with a VPN...and then the law is still being violated, and still can't be enforced.
The disconnect on display in this thread is something else.
That's baseless rambling, sorry.
Do you have anything to contribute other than misguided insults?
In economics this is called "createtive destruction" [0]. Basically it's the freedom of messing up someone else's business by creating something better. Think e-mail destroying most jobs for mail delivery or digital photos destroying photo development shops.
One of the hallmarks of lesser developed economies is that they do not allow these kind of things. What happens in stead is that the people that have a lot to lose will use their political power to stop the innovation from happening.
The more common practise this is in a country, the less developed the economy is usually. Because this partly destroys the incentive to innovate.
So basically a lot of powerful people in Italy are pretty scared for their jobs / income because of the rapid innovation in Large Language Models.