zlacker

Also the EU laws are read here, by people who live in countries where that would be the case, with way too much weight. People from the US putting cookie accept banners and gdpr blah on their sites while they don't have to, because they are not violating in the first place (the intent of the gdpr is very simple; don't do things you don't want to have done to you to others; tracking, collecting info you don't need to run the business etc; if you do more, you have to be able to defend that and ask for permission), but in the US they can expect a cease and desist in 2 seconds while in the EU that's not going to happen. They are going after large abusers or abusers that won't listen after a ton of warnings. Which they should.

>>anonzz+(OP)
Yea, the “pragmatic” EU approach to legislation: write it in draconian language and let it carry incredible sanctions (like millions of euros), but then just don’t enforce it. Unless you anger some bureaucrat of course.

>>bjorns+Cf
They enforce it, just not against small companies as that is not the intent of these laws. You know, unlike pragmatic US legislation where you can fuck over anyone anytime over nothing valid.

>>anonzz+3J
If that’s not the intent of these laws then it should say so in the law. That’s what rule of law is all about.

>>bjorns+Kl1
Not really: it formulates what is illegal etc but then, when there is an infringement, a judge should still interpret the intent vs the letter. Countries that rule too heavy towards the letter suck for ‘the little guy’ as, invariably, it gets abused to get people in trouble. But you cannot formulate a law like that as then the little guy that actually is abusing cannot be caught out. Again, law sucks everywhere, but, in my opinion, it’s vastly worse in countries that are ‘tough on crime’ as they use more so the letter of the law and so screwing poor people over nothing.