21–30 of 95 posts
Facebook already ignores the GDPR with total impunity ( https://ruben.verborgh.org/facebook/ ) so not surprised at all.
Is there any recourse that would force Facebook to comply?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any recourse that would force Facebook to comply?
The EU courts could go after any assets/companies associated with Facebook operating in the EU and basically dissolve them as bankrupt if they fail to pay their increasing fines. Another venue is to go directly after Facebooks European customers and make it illegal for any company to pay Facebook for ads targeting European customers. In the end this would force Facebook to abandon Europe and lead to local competitors…
This line to me sounds incredibly sinister. For a long time I've been fearmongering about the level of power held by these multinationals approaching those of small states. It sounds rather disconcerting when Facebook is engaging in diplomacy and brinksmanship with powerful nation states. Even worse, when they're winning.
It's at least encouraging that the European Union is concerned about Facebook's growing power and political influence. The incumbent American institution seems to have all-but ignored this growing problem. Of course there were lots of crocodile tears about "Russian collusion" and "Fortifying the Election", and so on. However through all that, there doesn't seem to have been much questioning of the nature of Big Tech's power, only the direction of its application.
Facebook already ignores the GDPR with total impunity ( https://ruben.verborgh.org/facebook/ ) so not surprised at all.
GDPR only applies to the EU anyway. They can't enforce GDPR in the US. Facebook can always just close their offices in Germany but still serve their website worldwide, and unless Germany wants to implement a firewall to the likes of China, it will be accessible to German residents. The US needs to implement an equivalent privacy law.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200813235643/http://slawsonand...
> Article 3(2), a new feature of the GDPR, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over companies that have nothing but an internet presence in the EU and offer goods or services to EU residents[1]. While the GDPR requires these companies[2] to follow its data processing rules, it leaves the question of enforcement unanswered. Regulations that cannot be enforced do little to protect the personal data of EU citizens.
> This article discusses how U.S. law affects the enforcement of Article 3(2). In reality, enforcing the GDPR on U.S. companies may be almost impossible. First, the U.S. prohibits enforcing of foreign-country fines. Thus, the EU enforcement power of fines for noncompliance is negligible. Second, enforcing the GDPR through the designated representative can be easily circumvented. Finally, a private lawsuit brought by in the EU may be impossible to enforce under U.S. law.
[snip]
> Currently, there is a hole in the GDPR wall that protects European Union personal data. Even with extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. companies with only an internet presence in the EU, the GDPR gives little in the way of tools to enforce it. Fines from supervisory authorities would be stopped by the prohibition on enforcing foreign fines. The company can evade enforcement through a representative simply by not designating one. Finally, private actions may be stalled on issues of personal jurisdiction. If a U.S. company completely disregards the GDPR while targeting customers in the EU, it can use the personal data of EU citizens without much fear of the consequences. While the extraterritorial jurisdiction created by Article 3(2) may have seemed like a good way to solve the problem of foreign companies who do not have a physical presence in the EU, it turns out to be practically useless.
> "In 2016, the commissioner demanded Facebook stop collecting user data from WhatsApp. In that case, Facebook worked with Germany to iron things out. It does not appear that the social media platform is willing to cooperate this time." This line to me sounds incredibly sinister. For a long time I've been fearmongering about the level of power held by these multinationals approaching those of small states. It sounds…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sucking up 4% of revenue is catastrophic enough (that is probably double digits of profit). The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company.
> The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company. Why not, out of curiosity? We don't make this distinction for low-income folks who get parking tickets. If you don't make them truly punitive why comply? It just gets factored into the cost of doing business.
It's time for WhatsApp to be removed from under the control of this toxic company.