GDPR Resources
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
I am guessing that the final resolution may be somewhere in the middle of the EU's statements, and what you said, but there will be some court cases along the way that US businesses will want to avoid.
Except they avoid them by simply.... not being able to be sued. The EU has no means of going after a US business in the US. It's not allowed.
To enforce this would either require a treaty which, in turn, would require local US laws to make it affect US companies. Or an act of war. Because this is a breach of national sovereignty.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
The EU doesn't have any say outside of the EU. it's just that simple.
Of course they do. It is called treaties. The specifics of each one determine what applies where, but it most certainly exists.
-
Look at it another way, the US has conflicting laws to this. So it would require the EU being in charge of the US legal system for it to apply.
-
@jaredbusch said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
The EU doesn't have any say outside of the EU. it's just that simple.
Of course they do. It is called treaties. The specifics of each one determine what applies where, but it most certainly exists.
A treaty, as I explained, requires the treatied country to make their own law that makes the treaty apply or determines how. Even if the US makes an EU treaty and agrees to this, nothing applies until the treaty-based US law is put in place. Until then, the existing US law applies, for example.
-
Imagine how this would play out in the real world. If countries could just make any law that they want to apply to other places that don't have access to their legal system... Bahrain could make some law, make it secret, and arrest everyone in France for breaking their laws. Doesn't make sense. Sovereignty is the barrier to legal exposure.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
Imagine how this would play out in the real world. If countries could just make any law that they want to apply to other places that don't have access to their legal system... Bahrain could make some law, make it secret, and arrest everyone in France for breaking their laws. Doesn't make sense. Sovereignty is the barrier to legal exposure.
I am not sure what all the things are that underlie this law in terms of existing treaties, but there are some very reputable organizations that are assuming that it will be enforceable on US companies that interact with EU citizens without a physical presence in the EU.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
Imagine how this would play out in the real world. If countries could just make any law that they want to apply to other places that don't have access to their legal system... Bahrain could make some law, make it secret, and arrest everyone in France for breaking their laws. Doesn't make sense. Sovereignty is the barrier to legal exposure.
I am not sure what all the things are that underlie this law in terms of existing treaties, but there are some very reputable organizations that are assuming that it will be enforceable on US companies that interact with EU citizens without a physical presence in the EU.
That's a LOT of stuff and I can't find anything in it. Where do you see if saying that it would apply to US companies?
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
Imagine how this would play out in the real world. If countries could just make any law that they want to apply to other places that don't have access to their legal system... Bahrain could make some law, make it secret, and arrest everyone in France for breaking their laws. Doesn't make sense. Sovereignty is the barrier to legal exposure.
I am not sure what all the things are that underlie this law in terms of existing treaties, but there are some very reputable organizations that are assuming that it will be enforceable on US companies that interact with EU citizens without a physical presence in the EU.
That's a LOT of stuff and I can't find anything in it. Where do you see if saying that it would apply to US companies?
Section 1, bullet 2: "Second, a controller or processor not established in the EU will be subject to the GDPR 'where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union,' even when the goods and services are offered for free." is the easiest to locate, but there are other statements that either explicitly or implicitly state that US companies without physical presence in the EU will be subject to GDPR.
-
The thing about the GDPR, is that it is SO broad, that if you are in the EU, it applies to... everyone. Even humans. Just overheaing a name or having a wifi access point falls under it. Everyone, even home users, are often included. It's so sweeping it's insane.
In the US, companies aren't affected by it unless they are receiving that data from a company in the EU and the EU company follows the law and has a contract with the US company binding it to the rules.
Your average US based website is under no obligation to do anything for the GDPR, but US based websites are something like 90% of the coverage cases.
-
It is very broad. They're basically leaning on case law to refine and define it.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
Imagine how this would play out in the real world. If countries could just make any law that they want to apply to other places that don't have access to their legal system... Bahrain could make some law, make it secret, and arrest everyone in France for breaking their laws. Doesn't make sense. Sovereignty is the barrier to legal exposure.
I am not sure what all the things are that underlie this law in terms of existing treaties, but there are some very reputable organizations that are assuming that it will be enforceable on US companies that interact with EU citizens without a physical presence in the EU.
That's a LOT of stuff and I can't find anything in it. Where do you see if saying that it would apply to US companies?
Section 1, bullet 2: "Second, a controller or processor not established in the EU will be subject to the GDPR 'where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union,' even when the goods and services are offered for free." is the easiest to locate, but there are other statements that either explicitly or implicitly state that US companies without physical presence in the EU will be subject to GDPR.
You left out the part of the quote that makes it not matter to 99% of companies...
“where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union,”
So that bullet point doesn't apply.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
It is very broad. They're basically leaning on case law to refine and define it.
Case law.... in countries that aren't under the law.
Doing that is no different than me making a law that says "if you talk to Scott, you have to obey him for life" and anyone who says "hi" to me I try to make my slave.
I can say that, I can even say that I am "relying on case law" to hopefully make it happen. but bottom line, the EU like me, is not a US lawmaker.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
Imagine how this would play out in the real world. If countries could just make any law that they want to apply to other places that don't have access to their legal system... Bahrain could make some law, make it secret, and arrest everyone in France for breaking their laws. Doesn't make sense. Sovereignty is the barrier to legal exposure.
I am not sure what all the things are that underlie this law in terms of existing treaties, but there are some very reputable organizations that are assuming that it will be enforceable on US companies that interact with EU citizens without a physical presence in the EU.
That's a LOT of stuff and I can't find anything in it. Where do you see if saying that it would apply to US companies?
Section 1, bullet 2: "Second, a controller or processor not established in the EU will be subject to the GDPR 'where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union,' even when the goods and services are offered for free." is the easiest to locate, but there are other statements that either explicitly or implicitly state that US companies without physical presence in the EU will be subject to GDPR.
You left out the part of the quote that makes it not matter to 99% of companies...
“where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union,”
So that bullet point doesn't apply.
I merely quoted the text from the article. The absence of the text was not deliberate. In fact the bullet point actually does contain information that covers your comment.
That said, goods or services is very broad. Is Kickstarter affected? There are EU citizens that participate in kickstarts, but the company is solely in Brooklyn, NY. Based on the above they would be, as would any other company in a similar situation.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
Imagine how this would play out in the real world. If countries could just make any law that they want to apply to other places that don't have access to their legal system... Bahrain could make some law, make it secret, and arrest everyone in France for breaking their laws. Doesn't make sense. Sovereignty is the barrier to legal exposure.
I am not sure what all the things are that underlie this law in terms of existing treaties, but there are some very reputable organizations that are assuming that it will be enforceable on US companies that interact with EU citizens without a physical presence in the EU.
That's a LOT of stuff and I can't find anything in it. Where do you see if saying that it would apply to US companies?
Section 1, bullet 2: "Second, a controller or processor not established in the EU will be subject to the GDPR 'where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union,' even when the goods and services are offered for free." is the easiest to locate, but there are other statements that either explicitly or implicitly state that US companies without physical presence in the EU will be subject to GDPR.
You left out the part of the quote that makes it not matter to 99% of companies...
“where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union,”
So that bullet point doesn't apply.
I merely quoted the text from the article. The absence of the text was not deliberate. In fact the bullet point actually does contain information that covers your comment.
That said, goods or services is very broad. Is Kickstarter affected? There are EU citizens that participate in kickstarts, but the company is solely in Brooklyn, NY. Based on the above they would be, as would any other company in a similar situation.
Right, except there is no law to cover them. It's as simple as "EU law doesn't affect outside the US"
It's really that simple. They have no jurisdiction. There is no GDPR in the US.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
That said, goods or services is very broad. Is Kickstarter affected? There are EU citizens that participate in kickstarts, but the company is solely in Brooklyn, NY. Based on the above they would be, as would any other company in a similar situation.
No, because no goods or services offered in the EU.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
That said, goods or services is very broad. Is Kickstarter affected? There are EU citizens that participate in kickstarts, but the company is solely in Brooklyn, NY. Based on the above they would be, as would any other company in a similar situation.
No, because no goods or services offered in the EU.
Ok, now you're quoting the regulation incorrectly...
Actual text:
2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or
processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:
(a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data
subjects in the Union; or
(b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.In Kickstarter's case they are offering goods and/or services to data subjects in the Union.
-
@kelly, @scottalanmiller already pointed out that the law is allowed to say whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that it can be enforced.
-
@travisdh1 said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly, @scottalanmiller already pointed out that the law is allowed to say whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that it can be enforced.
Yes, and I already admitted my ignorance, but pointed to reputable, learned sources who do believe it will be applicable in ways I stated.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@travisdh1 said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly, @scottalanmiller already pointed out that the law is allowed to say whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that it can be enforced.
Yes, and I already admitted my ignorance, but pointed to reputable, learned sources who do believe it will be applicable in ways I stated.
The supposed reputable source (Looks like New York School of Law, do I remember that right?) isn't making any sense if they claim a company based in the US has to be compliant. They may be law experts, and they're most likely correct about any company that has an office in the E.U., but unless their is already a treaty in place that lets the E.U. enforce this on US companies, it doesn't hold water.
-
@travisdh1 said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@travisdh1 said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly, @scottalanmiller already pointed out that the law is allowed to say whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that it can be enforced.
Yes, and I already admitted my ignorance, but pointed to reputable, learned sources who do believe it will be applicable in ways I stated.
The supposed reputable source (Looks like New York School of Law, do I remember that right?) isn't making any sense if they claim a company based in the US has to be compliant. They may be law experts, and they're most likely correct about any company that has an office in the E.U., but unless their is already a treaty in place that lets the E.U. enforce this on US companies, it doesn't hold water.
I'm not disagreeing with your and Scott's premise, but your conclusion. I believe you're both right that a law in another country without the basis of treaty will be unenforceable in another country. The fact that people who are responsible for knowing if an international law impacts US companies are stating that it is leads me, as a layperson, to think that there may be something there rather than just dismissing.
I have emailed the authors of the article to see if they have any basis for their conclusions.
