GDPR Resources
-
@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.
-
This doesn't address the legal jurisdiction question that we've been discussing, but here is a clarification from the European Commission on an example of a company not subject to the requirements of GDPR:
"Your company is service provider based outside the EU. It provides services to customers outside the EU. Its clients can use its services when they travel to other countries, including within the EU. Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR."
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@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.
My feeling, from looking at the article, is that they treating the majority case as so obvious that it's not mentioned. They are talking only about companies that do data processing on behalf of EU companies that are collecting data on behalf of clients. I think that it's a case of assumptions. They are assuming a basis that includes getting EU data in the first place. but the wording is so broad that just mentioning EU residents would be covered. Or they are assuming situations where there is jurisdiction and just assuming we understand that.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@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.
The key bit there is that the processor or controller in the EU is the tie. In all they example cases, there is a contract that connects someone to the EU. It's US companies, doing nothing in the EU, getting information about people in the EU, without ever being there, that is the issue.
To make it more difficult... consider that the US companies have no way to know that the data is about people in the EU.
Take ML for example, we have data the EU wants covered, but we have no way to know who is and isn't in the EU. Not only is there no means of enforcing the rule, there is no way to know what data it covers!
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
@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.
The key bit there is that the processor or controller in the EU is the tie. In all they example cases, there is a contract that connects someone to the EU. It's US companies, doing nothing in the EU, getting information about people in the EU, without ever being there, that is the issue.
To make it more difficult... consider that the US companies have no way to know that the data is about people in the EU.
Take ML for example, we have data the EU wants covered, but we have no way to know who is and isn't in the EU. Not only is there no means of enforcing the rule, there is no way to know what data it covers!
They key element in the link I shared above that goes to the EC site is that there is something that targets the good or service towards an EU member that is the delineating point of the regulation (leaving aside the enforce ability of the regulation). ML has nothing that targets EU citizens, but those things can be relatively simple and unassuming from what I've read, like language translation into an EU member language when that is not the native language of the country of origin.
-
@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:
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.
The key bit there is that the processor or controller in the EU is the tie. In all they example cases, there is a contract that connects someone to the EU. It's US companies, doing nothing in the EU, getting information about people in the EU, without ever being there, that is the issue.
To make it more difficult... consider that the US companies have no way to know that the data is about people in the EU.
Take ML for example, we have data the EU wants covered, but we have no way to know who is and isn't in the EU. Not only is there no means of enforcing the rule, there is no way to know what data it covers!
They key element in the link I shared above that goes to the EC site is that there is something that targets the good or service towards an EU member that is the delineating point of the regulation (leaving aside the enforce ability of the regulation). ML has nothing that targets EU citizens, but those things can be relatively simple and unassuming from what I've read, like language translation into an EU member language when that is not the native language of the country of origin.
Yeah, and it's SO loose that "we use English", or "we do tech and the EU is very technical", we are "pro business", we have a .it domain, etc. are all things someone might argue make us "target" EU citizens.
-
It's probably something that millions of US companies should join together and pressure the FTC to sue the EU on behalf of American businesses for extortion and threats; and make a law that makes it illegal to attempt to enforce or mention in the US.
-
@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:
@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.
The key bit there is that the processor or controller in the EU is the tie. In all they example cases, there is a contract that connects someone to the EU. It's US companies, doing nothing in the EU, getting information about people in the EU, without ever being there, that is the issue.
To make it more difficult... consider that the US companies have no way to know that the data is about people in the EU.
Take ML for example, we have data the EU wants covered, but we have no way to know who is and isn't in the EU. Not only is there no means of enforcing the rule, there is no way to know what data it covers!
They key element in the link I shared above that goes to the EC site is that there is something that targets the good or service towards an EU member that is the delineating point of the regulation (leaving aside the enforce ability of the regulation). ML has nothing that targets EU citizens, but those things can be relatively simple and unassuming from what I've read, like language translation into an EU member language when that is not the native language of the country of origin.
Yeah, and it's SO loose that "we use English", or "we do tech and the EU is very technical", we are "pro business", we have a .it domain, etc. are all things someone might argue make us "target" EU citizens.
From your response it sounds like you are not studying the topic very deeply and are making some unfounded assumptions. I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at, but in the things I've linked they talk about what targeting EU data subjects actually looks like. It is not a list of things, but it gives examples of things that would be considered targeting. It isn't concrete, and probably never will be. That is the way of legislation. It requires case law to flesh it out.
Actually your .it domain might land ML in GDPR land because of the requirements to obtain that tld have very clear and direct ties to an EU member.
-
@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:
@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.
The key bit there is that the processor or controller in the EU is the tie. In all they example cases, there is a contract that connects someone to the EU. It's US companies, doing nothing in the EU, getting information about people in the EU, without ever being there, that is the issue.
To make it more difficult... consider that the US companies have no way to know that the data is about people in the EU.
Take ML for example, we have data the EU wants covered, but we have no way to know who is and isn't in the EU. Not only is there no means of enforcing the rule, there is no way to know what data it covers!
They key element in the link I shared above that goes to the EC site is that there is something that targets the good or service towards an EU member that is the delineating point of the regulation (leaving aside the enforce ability of the regulation). ML has nothing that targets EU citizens, but those things can be relatively simple and unassuming from what I've read, like language translation into an EU member language when that is not the native language of the country of origin.
Yeah, and it's SO loose that "we use English", or "we do tech and the EU is very technical", we are "pro business", we have a .it domain, etc. are all things someone might argue make us "target" EU citizens.
From your response it sounds like you are not studying the topic very deeply and are making some unfounded assumptions. I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at, but in the things I've linked they talk about what targeting EU data subjects actually looks like. It is not a list of things, but it gives examples of things that would be considered targeting. It isn't concrete, and probably never will be. That is the way of legislation. It requires case law to flesh it out.
Actually your .it domain might land ML in GDPR land because of the requirements to obtain that tld have very clear and direct ties to an EU member.
That's the list I'm working from. Read it carefully, it's sweeping and can include absolutely anyone, anytime, anywhere.
-
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
Actually your .it domain might land ML in GDPR land because of the requirements to obtain that tld have very clear and direct ties to an EU member.
Except those ties are on their end, not the US side. In the US, it is just sold like any other domain. That there is a problem, it's on the EU side of things.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
Actually your .it domain might land ML in GDPR land because of the requirements to obtain that tld have very clear and direct ties to an EU member.
Except those ties are on their end, not the US side. In the US, it is just sold like any other domain. That there is a problem, it's on the EU side of things.
Not how that works.
Just because you bought it from an American company does not mean that it is not potentially subject to rules for that country code.
The company that resells it to you has to agree to terms to be able to sell it in the first pace.
-
-
-
-
So yes, it is very likely that ML will fall under GDPR.
-
@jaredbusch said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
Actually your .it domain might land ML in GDPR land because of the requirements to obtain that tld have very clear and direct ties to an EU member.
Except those ties are on their end, not the US side. In the US, it is just sold like any other domain. That there is a problem, it's on the EU side of things.
Not how that works.
Just because you bought it from an American company does not mean that it is not potentially subject to rules for that country code.
The company that resells it to you has to agree to terms to be able to sell it in the first pace.
Correct, the one that sells it to me. They might be covered, of course.
-
@jaredbusch said in GDPR Resources:
So yes, it is very likely that ML will fall under GDPR.
Only if the registering party made a contract with ML to do so.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@jaredbusch said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
Actually your .it domain might land ML in GDPR land because of the requirements to obtain that tld have very clear and direct ties to an EU member.
Except those ties are on their end, not the US side. In the US, it is just sold like any other domain. That there is a problem, it's on the EU side of things.
Not how that works.
Just because you bought it from an American company does not mean that it is not potentially subject to rules for that country code.
The company that resells it to you has to agree to terms to be able to sell it in the first pace.
Correct, the one that sells it to me. They might be covered, of course.
Incorrect, because you do not own it. Ever. Unless you prove different residency.
No one can sell it to you. A trustee owns it and said trustee is a legal resident and as the owner of it, they will be rquired to have it comply with GDPR.
-
@jaredbusch said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@jaredbusch said in GDPR Resources:
@scottalanmiller said in GDPR Resources:
@kelly said in GDPR Resources:
Actually your .it domain might land ML in GDPR land because of the requirements to obtain that tld have very clear and direct ties to an EU member.
Except those ties are on their end, not the US side. In the US, it is just sold like any other domain. That there is a problem, it's on the EU side of things.
Not how that works.
Just because you bought it from an American company does not mean that it is not potentially subject to rules for that country code.
The company that resells it to you has to agree to terms to be able to sell it in the first pace.
Correct, the one that sells it to me. They might be covered, of course.
Incorrect, because you do not own it. Ever. Unless you prove different residency.
That's a totally different issue. The legal coverage does not exist without a contract specifying such.
-
@jaredbusch said in GDPR Resources:
No one can sell it to you. A trustee owns it and said trustee is a legal resident and as the owner of it, they will be rquired to have it comply with GDPR.
Correct, which agrees completely with what I've been saying.
