If you thought GDPR is a joke, joke's on you

[Brad L]

I think it's a mistake to force members to read and accept your full terms before they can visit your website. There are dozens of forums that I have not participated in since all of this started because I simply don't have time to read their terms.

 

[S Thomas]

Be cool, don't read 'em.

 

[Claverhouse]

Be cool, don't read 'em.

01/ European version: "These are your rights to manage what data you have us make use of..."

02/ American version: "By entering this site, or any other partner site, you hereby irrevocably allow us to hold any data on you forever, share it with government and business interests, allow the sale or rent of any data to any other entity, and make such use of the data for our or anyone other's marketing, benefit, business use, permanent records etc., and to build up permanent profiles on your buying habits, personality and criminal records, which may be checked with whatever persons and agencies we choose; and to accept all advertisements and special offers we apply, and to allow financial information to be collated with all personal information we gather; etc. etc."

 

[Ozzy47]

02/ American version: "By entering this site, or any other partner site, you hereby irrevocably allow us to hold any data on you forever, share it with government and business interests, allow the sale or rent of any data to any other entity, and make such use of the data for our or anyone other's marketing, benefit, business use, permanent records etc., and to build up permanent profiles on your buying habits, personality and criminal records, which may be checked with whatever persons and agencies we choose; and to accept all advertisements and special offers we apply, and to allow financial information to be collated with all personal information we gather; etc. etc."

That is just plain stupid and way OTT.

 

[Kevin]

That is just plain stupid and way OTT.

In regards to the GDPR and some people's reactions (both pro & con), we crossed that threshold way long ago.

 

[imno007]

All I know is that I can easily envision an internet that in 10 years won't be nearly as open and free and amenable to startup's as it has heretofore. Governments and big business will be exercising a lot more control. You pro-regulation crusaders can scoff all you want and accuse people of overreacting and crying wolf, but if I'm still kicking in another 10 years and XF is still in business, I'll be sure to drop back by and say, "I told you so."

 

[webbouk]

Is it just me that's noticed a lot of the big players seem to have either ignored GDPR or must have buried changes to their websites deep within?

Online grocery stores, DIY stores, ebay, banks, even the UK Gov website seem to have managed to implement the change without any noticeable differences.
The level of unsolicited emails hasn't really dropped, there are still newsletters, offers and other notifications pouring in from the same usual suspects.
The main difference I have found is our advertising revenue is dropping.

Have we as xenForo users taken the whole GDPR out of context ?

 

[Lukas W.]

Most of the big ones have been compliant to the GDPR for a long time already. They've searched and found better ways to process your data, and are at least two steps ahead of politics. Besides that, they had two years time, so they maybe just made their changes not yesterday, but actually two years ago, and no one bothered.

 

[ManagerJosh]

Wrong.


Wrong.

GDPR data subjects are residents of EU states at the time their personal data is processed. It has nothing to do with citizenship. It is very much territorial.

Respectfully, I do not agree.

Per Article 3 - Territorial Scope.

1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.
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:
   1. 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
   2. the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
3. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.

The language there targets both businesses established within the EU and outside of the EU. In respects to citizens, the language refers to "in the union". However, if we look at the Recitals 2 and 14, we see the following:

Recitals 2

The principles of, and rules on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data should, whatever their nationality or residence, respect their fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular their right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation is intended to contribute to the accomplishment of an area of freedom, security and justice and of an economic union, to economic and social progress, to the strengthening and the convergence of the economies within the internal market, and to the well-being of natural persons.

Recitals 14

The protection afforded by this Regulation should apply to natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence, in relation to the processing of their personal data. This Regulation does not cover the processing of personal data which concerns legal persons and in particular undertakings established as legal persons, including the name and the form of the legal person and the contact details of the legal person.

Given that the recitals are first, and moreover, there is clear language that states protections afforded by this regulation should apply to all natural persons, I would make a case that it is not territorial in nature, but is a right afforded by an EU citizen living anywhere in the globe.

Reference: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN

I look at this no different than I had a physical store in New York that someone from the EU flew in and walked in and did business with me. I'm not subject to the EU's quirky decision making process (or lack sometimes lack there-of).

See Article 3 - Territorial Scope.

Again.... this is where we will have to agree to disagree. The applicable law typically where the transactional process takes place. And that transactional process is (in my case) under US Jurisdiction. Or are you saying that if I buy something from an EU distributor (who has absolutely no US presence other than a website on the internet), I can (and should be able to) bring suit against him in my local jurisdiction courts (for tort actions or even criminal) even if his "business" has no presence here?
Do you realize how unrealistic that is?

It is not unrealistic as one thinks. If memory serves me correctly, Switzerland is helping to enforce US tax laws and is disclosing tax evaders to the IRS.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Again.... this is where we will have to agree to disagree. The applicable law typically where the transactional process takes place. And that transactional process is (in my case) under US Jurisdiction. Or are you saying that if I buy something from an EU distributor (who has absolutely no US presence other than a website on the internet), I can (and should be able to) bring suit against him in my local jurisdiction courts (for tort actions or even criminal) even if his "business" has no presence here?
Do you realize how unrealistic that is?

There's already a lot of discussion in regard to applying state tax on digital sdales based on the the tax laws of the cudtomers location. This is already happening in Europe, and there is a lot of discussion abut it happening in the US, in regard to overturning the 1992 Supreme Court decision that it is unworkeable. Things have moved on and I would imagine this will happen in the US too.

https://www.taxamo.com/insights/sales-tax-us-vat-number/

 

[wedgar]

Respectfully, I do not agree.

Per Article 3 - Territorial Scope.



The language there targets both businesses established within the EU and outside of the EU. In respects to citizens, the language refers to "in the union". However, if we look at the Recitals 2 and 14, we see the following:

Recitals 2


Recitals 14


Given that the recitals are first, and moreover, there is clear language that states protections afforded by this regulation should apply to all natural persons, I would make a case that it is not territorial in nature, but is a right afforded by an EU citizen living anywhere in the globe.

Reference: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN



See Article 3 - Territorial Scope.



It is not unrealistic as one thinks. If memory serves me correctly, Switzerland is helping to enforce US tax laws and is disclosing tax evaders to the IRS.

Regarding Switzerland helping the US to enforce US Tax laws, could it be there is a tax treaty between those two countries regarding that issue?

Similarly, is there an agreement between the US and the EU regarding GDPR?

 

[wedgar]

There's already a lot of discussion in regard to applying state tax on digital sdales based on the the tax laws of the cudtomers location. This is already happening in Europe, and there is a lot of discussion abut it happening in the US, in regard to overturning the 1992 Supreme Court decision that it is unworkeable. Things have moved on and I would imagine this will happen in the US too.

https://www.taxamo.com/insights/sales-tax-us-vat-number/

Currently, if a business does not have nexus in the state charging the sales tax, the state had a problem collecting the tax from the business. If the business had no nexus and does not charge sales tax, the purchaser must report and pay the tax.

I don't agree with your thought that the privacy regulations would be enforceable where the client resides.

 

[Claverhouse]

All I know is that I can easily envision an internet that in 10 years won't be nearly as open and free and amenable to startup's as it has heretofore. Governments and big business will be exercising a lot more control. You pro-regulation crusaders can scoff all you want and accuse people of overreacting and crying wolf, but if I'm still kicking in another 10 years and XF is still in business, I'll be sure to drop back by and say, "I told you so."

Maybe, but I have noticed that the internet is already much more controlled/corralled and less free and open than it was even 10 years ago, thanks to the creeping tactics of both the big tech corps and the business corps. And perhaps that was less free than in the '90s. There were some truly zany sites 10 years ago, now pushed out in favour of dodgy computer advice pages and Facebook.


Just as the only shops that ever gave towns different character were those selling second-hand items ( antiques, books et al ) --- now pushed out by the big high street chains ( themselves collapsing through that initial success, since if the new items are identical whichever town you go to, why bother to shop at one in particular ? Or easier yet, go online to Amazon ) so the old web was mainly valuable from individualist sites, blogs, forums and ranting screeds, rather than the new bland capitalist blur.

 

[Brad L]

It's up to Europe to prevent their citizens from accessing my websites. I don't fall under their jurisdiction.

 

[Claverhouse]

No more than we are under the jurisdiction of America and her rather greedy copyright association partners ( including, but not limited to the MPAA and RIAA --- the last of which once claimed in court $75 trillion from Limewire ).


You really are in no danger. As a comparison think of the present situation where America produces most of the world's porn, which is well protected by the Constitution, and Congress alike as a major industry. America can certainly send her porn all over the world, but local laws and public mores block it in some countries --- even if it violates Free Trade. Countries have the right to block websites showing in their jurisdiction, however stupidly ( see Great Britain, and more so Australia where the bluenoses won ), but they don't pursue the offending websites in the courts.


The EU can go after Facebook and big organizations which hold data because they market to Europeans, and that's the price of doing business. They can't, nor wish to, go after millions on millions of ordinary sites. You can always just simply block off countries in Europe either through .htaccess or an add-on, if you wanted. If you're not selling to them there's no loss.

 

[ManagerJosh]

It's up to Europe to prevent their citizens from accessing my websites. I don't fall under their jurisdiction.

See Article 3 - Territorial Scope.

1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.
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:
   1. 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
   2. the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
3. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.

 

[TPerry]

See Article 3 - Territorial Scope.

Still does not validate that he falls under their jurisdiction. Just because they write it and wish it to be, doesn't necessarily make it so. That is something that the courts (specifically the appropriate "home" jurisdiction and not the originating one) has to decide. The EU is a big fan of a open reading of public international law that is frequently in conflict with other nations - frequently due to state sovereignty. Much of international law is consent based, and if one state/nation hasn't consented, then that law has no standing in said location. Within the EU that is how their decisions are binding as there are agreements between all parties (governments) - but unless a treaty/agreement exists, it then falls upon that nation/state to determine if they will agree to fall under the purview of the "law".

 

[MySiteGuy]

No more than we are under the jurisdiction of America and her rather greedy copyright association partners ( including, but not limited to the MPAA and RIAA --- the last of which once claimed in court $75 trillion from Limewire ).

But you are under the jurisdiction of your own copyright laws, which are part of the Buenos Aires Convention and Berne Convention. Those copyrights by US companies are enforced according to those laws and your local copyright law when the offense takes place in your country.

Greedy is also taking something without paying for it. Pirating falls under that umbrella.

 

[Kirby]

As expected the proposal has bee accepted

Now it's up to Europen Parliament to accept it as well, which most likely will happen in July.

Looking forward to see those proposals to become actual law.

 

[S Thomas]

So indeed the proposal has been accepted. They tried to emphasize that they don't want to censor the internet and that YT's content upload filter is working well even though it's not "required" in that form yet. And that they did not suggest a "upload filter".

On the other hand, there's the technical point of view / interpretation which inevitably leads to a content filter. Plus, taking YT's Content ID as an example pretty much says that an upload filter will be mandatory.
So all in all that's what we were arguing about earlier @Kirby.

Also, apparently, the proposal has been heavily lifted in favor of non-commercial projects, though, it's not clear if it would benefit them at all.
On the flip side, there's one more aspect to the "link tax" I didn't think of prior to that: Links can contain headlines and that already falls under the "link tax" because it's a quote.

What is confirmed, though, is, that independent blogger, YT or other content creators stand no chance anymore if they monetize their content.

Generally, there is no clear wordings about what's going to happen in the near future, not even among the politicans themselves who are part of the whole drama. Let's see if we indeed are just overreacting or if it's really the end of internet as we know.

Sources: https://thenextweb.com/eu/2018/06/19/the-eus-disastrous-copyright-reform-explained/
https://gizmodo.com/the-end-of-all-thats-good-and-pure-about-the-internet-1826963763
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/mel...-Filter-und-Leistungsschutzrecht-4087028.html (German)