I wear a tinfoil hat as much as the next guy, and I have studied up on GDPR rules at work, and all I can say is they are designed to basically give any country the ability to say, "We don't like you, Americans. You are bad and we don't like you."
Like it or not, we're all connected. You can look at websites in France, or Germany, or America.
Having different rules for the data makes sense at the company-level, or server-level. "Here are the rules for Norwegian companies..."
But it just doesn't make a lot of sense for French laws to apply to US-servers. Where does that end? If Alabama passes a law saying "You have to have just English on your website..." but Canada says, "You have to have your website in French and English..." who wins? What do the developers use as the source of truth for their requirements?
And if we have to have one version of the website for each and every state and country... isn't that problematic... I mean you get that's problematic, right?
I think these courts ruling against Google are small courts, I think it'll get overturned. I think it likely has more to do with finding different ways to punish Google / Apple / other tech companies for not paying more taxes inside of those countries.
EU nations set up a lot of taxes, then get upset when global companies don't choose to build offices there. All of the regulation around data just feels like another "what can we do to be petty in response for them not paying us more taxes?"
Exactly like the USB-C adapter thing.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Google is skeezy, I get it... but fragmenting the web into a different set of rules for viewers in every nation... that's not the answer. It really can't be the answer.
> all I can say is they are designed to basically give any country the ability to say, "We don't like you, Americans. You are bad and we don't like you."
I agree, but that boat has sailed, and now Homebrew is dealing with it.
Here's an article that linked from the one you sent. Even the EU Parliament is in violation of GDPR. =P
* European parliament found to have broken EU rules on data transfers and cookie consents | TechCrunch | https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/10/edps-decision-european-par...
I wear a tinfoil hat as much as the next guy, and I have studied up on GDPR rules at work, and all I can say is they are designed to basically give any country the ability to say, "We don't like you, Americans. You are bad and we don't like you."
Like it or not, we're all connected. You can look at websites in France, or Germany, or America.
Having different rules for the data makes sense at the company-level, or server-level. "Here are the rules for Norwegian companies..."
But it just doesn't make a lot of sense for French laws to apply to US-servers. Where does that end? If Alabama passes a law saying "You have to have just English on your website..." but Canada says, "You have to have your website in French and English..." who wins? What do the developers use as the source of truth for their requirements?
And if we have to have one version of the website for each and every state and country... isn't that problematic... I mean you get that's problematic, right?
I think these courts ruling against Google are small courts, I think it'll get overturned. I think it likely has more to do with finding different ways to punish Google / Apple / other tech companies for not paying more taxes inside of those countries.
EU nations set up a lot of taxes, then get upset when global companies don't choose to build offices there. All of the regulation around data just feels like another "what can we do to be petty in response for them not paying us more taxes?"
Exactly like the USB-C adapter thing.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Google is skeezy, I get it... but fragmenting the web into a different set of rules for viewers in every nation... that's not the answer. It really can't be the answer.