</sarcasm>
People apparently have a hard enough time understanding invisible things such as privacy, but this goes double for those whose income depends on violating the privacy of everyone.
I'm sure we'll get a separate thread for each site that's closing, to emphasize how the (advertising) world is ending, one just needs to wait.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/28/17295498/super-monday-nigh...
https://digiday.com/media/gdpr-mayhem-programmatic-ad-buying...
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/25/media/gdpr-news-websites-la-...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/sites-blo...
Try doing some basic research before asking leading questions that you don't expect responses to.
-- Anatole France (I might have edited that quote slightly)
Few rich people have any inclination to sleep rough, whereas many wealthy tech companies have been happily selling their users' data as the law allowed it.
Only little people would steal a crust of bread for their supper. The rich generally commit bigger crimes.
;)
Is it also unfair that both small and large companies aren't allowed to pour acid into rivers? Should they get an exception?
Should only large restaurants be forbidden from serving rotten food? Should small car makers have exceptions to car safety and emission standards?
Funny you should say that because I'm an environmental studies major and we do, in essence, let small shops do exactly that. Most toxic chemicals are disposed of in residential and commercial trash because they are being disposed of in small quantities. You basically do have to exceed a certain threshold before certain regulations apply to your toxic waste, such as household batteries.
We encourage consumers to recycle tech. We sometimes tack on some kind of environmental related tax or surcharge to try to cover the cost, but it is paid up front, it is a small amount and we know the fee at the time of purchase. But we don't set bear traps that can ruin your life because you put an old computer in the trash can instead of disposing of it properly, for example.
GDPR was never about normal people, it was about companies. Trying to reframe it like it's about people is disingenuous. It is supposed to protect people, yes, but from people like you company owners and executives and others who think "screw everything, I'm looking at my bottom line".
You ignored the example with food, so I'm sure you already know this.
And a data access request. This has always existed, but it was a directive which was implemented in each local law, and local legislators could give (more mild) fines but almost never did.
GDPR is not new. And I'm not talking about 2016, I'm talking about the previous law from 1995 which is 95% the same for 99% of the companies.
- Yes they were. If you violated the law, even if your servers are outside, the country would claim the violation happened in their territory because the subject was in their country so the law was violated there, and they can sue you.
- Neither is GDPR. If you are outside the EU, they can't force you to pay a fine like your own government can. Without enforcement, the law doesn't really apply. (See GDPR from 2016 until now.)
Which one applies depends on a bunch of things, such as whether there's an extradition treaty and whether you have offices in the EU, etc. I've never gotten a straight answer on which law rules in such cases, but that's probably because there is no single ruling case. Both are sovereign states, who supercedes is not codified in any law because there is no higher instance to appeal to.
I mean, if a small island state makes a law that if one of their citizens visits another country, that country should pay tribute for the honor of being visited by one of theirs, how in the world is that going to be enforced? Same with GDPR: the EU claims it applies worldwide, but the only reason that holds any truth is because you probably want to do business with EU citizens. Banning your company is the only thing they can truly do to you, and that has always been the case.