Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?
-
@Zenith Congratulations, you just got your company into a massive mess, because there are a few thousand jurisdiction-specific edge cases your code does nothing whatsoever to take into account!
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Someone mentioned mail order and if that ever happened internationally
Most definitely. Ordering things from overseas happened long before the Internet made it easy. (Case in point: for the better part of a decade, I mail-ordered almost all my RPG books from the UK. I did this initially via letter, and later by fax, once I owned a fax modem.)
(on a wide-enough scale for there to be some jurisprudence about it...)
That, I don’t know for sure, but I would be very surprised if nobody ever went to court over international mail order.
-
@Mason_Wheeler You mean something I cooked up in five minutes isn't production ready? Perish the thought.
Edit: Ren, is that you? Because I still calculate my taxes based on states and not ZIP codes :P
-
@Zenith said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth Why would they involve individuals at all? The shop collects the entire amount and routes parts of it to different states.
“My shop is in Wisconsin, not Pennsylvania. I’m not required to cooperate with the Pennsylvania state tax department.”
-
@Gurth Except you are, thanks to South Dakota vs Wayfair.
Edit: And @Mason_Wheeler I understand the complexity of determining taxability but if you're already doing it to collect for 50 states, that's solved. It's just a matter of running your purchases through a second run to make it a two-state transaction. It's like being able to make a peanut butter sandwich and a jelly sandwich but throwing up your hands in defeat at the idea of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
-
@Zenith said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth Except you are, thanks to South Dakota vs Wayfair.
Obscure American jurisprudence irrelevant to the actual point, which is that it boils down to the same legal problem as ordering something online from another country.
-
@Gurth Right now I don't pay any taxes to import from abroad. I haven't decided if that's our government's impotence overseas or desire to punish small businesses here.
-
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Why would the location of the server matter more than the location of the browser?
Because the location of the server is fixed
Ever heard of cloud?
-
@Zenith said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Right now I don't pay any taxes to import from abroad. I haven't decided if that's our government's impotence overseas or desire to punish small businesses here.
Impotence overseas. States with sales taxes generally also pass a discriminatory "use tax" that they require you to remit with your annual income taxes on untaxed purchases from outside the state (be they other states or abroad).
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Why would the location of the server matter more than the location of the browser?
Because the location of the server is fixed
Ever heard of cloud?
In which the location of the server is broken?
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Because the location of the server is fixed
Ever heard of cloud?
Yes. I may not know which server my site is on in the Azure datacenter, but I know which data center it's in, and thus which sales tax regime it's under.
-
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page! Where's your god now!?
-
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Zenith said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Right now I don't pay any taxes to import from abroad. I haven't decided if that's our government's impotence overseas or desire to punish small businesses here.
Impotence overseas. States with sales taxes generally also pass a discriminatory "use tax" that they require you to remit with your annual income taxes on untaxed purchases from outside the state (be they other states or abroad).
And it's nothing but a punch line. That's why they went after businesses instead of customers with that court decision.
-
@Unperverted-Vixen And yet it's still broken.
-
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Because the location of the server is fixed
Ever heard of cloud?
Yes. I may not know which server my site is on in the Azure datacenter, but I know which data center it's in, and thus which sales tax regime it's under.
Funny you mention that - the sales tax in US depends on which state the buyer is located in. So we already have 51 unique precedents of "universal jurisdiction" in USA alone! So what exactly is @Mason_Wheeler butthurt over? EU simply does what US has done to its own people for a long time.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
Where's your god now!?
Same place he's always been, but such discussions really belong in the Garage.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting? It almost sounds like the scenario I described is actually plausible.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
It almost sounds like the scenario I described is actually plausible.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Funny you mention that - the sales tax in US depends on which state the buyer is located in.
No, it isn't. It's determined by where the seller is.
However, most states with sales taxes require that if a business has any location in that state, then they charge sales tax to residents of that state. (Since Amazon has operations in all 50 states, they have to charge sales tax in every state that has sales tax.)
Also, most states with sales taxes have a separate use tax that charges sales tax rates on purchases from out of state.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about? Your words make no sense.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about?
I'm talking about you making a distinction for some reason, without providing said reason. I'm asking you what the reason is.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about?
I'm talking about you making a distinction for some reason, without providing said reason. I'm asking you what the reason is.
I did provide the reason: linguistic disambiguation.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about?
I'm talking about you making a distinction for some reason, without providing said reason. I'm asking you what the reason is.
I did provide the reason: linguistic disambiguation.
Linguistic disambiguation between what and what? And what effect did this linguistic disambiguation have on what you said? If you were talking about using a cloud hosting instead of doing cloud hosting, would anything in your post change?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
However, most states with sales taxes require that if a business has any location in that state, then they charge sales tax to residents of that state.
So the buyer's state can force a legal entity registered in another state to pay taxes on a transaction that happened on a server in another state? Sounds like universal jurisdiction to me.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about?
I'm talking about you making a distinction for some reason, without providing said reason. I'm asking you what the reason is.
I did provide the reason: linguistic disambiguation.
Linguistic disambiguation between what and what? And what effect did this linguistic disambiguation have on what you said? If you were talking about using a cloud hosting instead of doing cloud hosting, would anything in your post change?
What changes is that I am asking you if you have done a specific thing. If it's ambiguous and unclear what it is I'm asking if you have done, then confusion ensues that is not conducive to productive conversation. This should have been clear and intuitive from the original post; why have you now wasted 4 posts on unproductive confusion?
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
However, most states with sales taxes require that if a business has any location in that state, then they charge sales tax to residents of that state.
So the buyer's state can force a legal entity registered in another state to pay taxes on a transaction that happened on a server in another state? Sounds like universal jurisdiction to me.
The relevant jurisdiction for interstate commerce is the federal government. It's not one state claiming jurisdiction over another state; it's the central US authority saying "all you states play nice down there!"
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
However, most states with sales taxes require that if a business has any location in that state, then they charge sales tax to residents of that state.
So the buyer's state can force a legal entity registered in another state to pay taxes on a transaction that happened on a server in another state? Sounds like universal jurisdiction to me.
When you go to a place, you're subject to the laws of that place.
Universal jurisdiction is not a concern with regards to Facebook and the GDPR because Facebook actually has EU operations.
A hypothetical Facebook competitor that did not have any physical presence in the EU should not be subject to the GDPR, even while serving content to EU customers.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about?
I'm talking about you making a distinction for some reason, without providing said reason. I'm asking you what the reason is.
I did provide the reason: linguistic disambiguation.
Linguistic disambiguation between what and what? And what effect did this linguistic disambiguation have on what you said? If you were talking about using a cloud hosting instead of doing cloud hosting, would anything in your post change?
What changes is that I am asking you if you have done a specific thing. If it's ambiguous and unclear what it is I'm asking if you have done, then confusion ensues that is not conducive to productive conversation.
And does it matter for the purpose of this discussion - in particular, the point you were making in that post - whether my expertise is with using someone else's cloud hosting services or with providing cloud hosting services to someone else?
This should have been clear and intuitive from the original post
Should, but you failed at it completely.
why have you now wasted 4 posts on unproductive confusion?
Oh, this is just the beginning.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
However, most states with sales taxes require that if a business has any location in that state, then they charge sales tax to residents of that state.
So the buyer's state can force a legal entity registered in another state to pay taxes on a transaction that happened on a server in another state? Sounds like universal jurisdiction to me.
The relevant jurisdiction for interstate commerce is the federal government. It's not one state claiming jurisdiction over another state; it's the central US authority saying "all you states play nice down there!"
Then how come a state law can affect how an interstate transaction is taxed? Sounds like the federal government simply bestowed universal jurisdiction on all its 50 states + DC, and told them to work out the details themselves.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about?
I'm talking about you making a distinction for some reason, without providing said reason. I'm asking you what the reason is.
I did provide the reason: linguistic disambiguation.
Linguistic disambiguation between what and what? And what effect did this linguistic disambiguation have on what you said? If you were talking about using a cloud hosting instead of doing cloud hosting, would anything in your post change?
What changes is that I am asking you if you have done a specific thing. If it's ambiguous and unclear what it is I'm asking if you have done, then confusion ensues that is not conducive to productive conversation.
And does it matter for the purpose of this discussion - in particular, the point you were making in that post - whether my expertise is with using someone else's cloud hosting services or with providing cloud hosting services to someone else?
I wasn't "making any point" with that distinction, I was drawing a distinction. Because I'm relatively sure that you've never run a cloud hosting company, but it's quite possible that you've used the services of one, and I wanted to disambiguate so that you wouldn't end up answering "no" to the wrong question.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler yup! Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
Umm... have you ever actually hosted a cloud application?
If it's not how any of it works, why did you have to put that abbr tag that underlines the difference between hosting and being provided hosting?
Linguistic disambiguation for reasons.
So does it matter or does it not matter? If it doesn't matter then what reasons have you been protecting yourself against? Why protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?
Seriously, what are you even talking about?
I'm talking about you making a distinction for some reason, without providing said reason. I'm asking you what the reason is.
I did provide the reason: linguistic disambiguation.
Linguistic disambiguation between what and what? And what effect did this linguistic disambiguation have on what you said? If you were talking about using a cloud hosting instead of doing cloud hosting, would anything in your post change?
What changes is that I am asking you if you have done a specific thing. If it's ambiguous and unclear what it is I'm asking if you have done, then confusion ensues that is not conducive to productive conversation.
And does it matter for the purpose of this discussion - in particular, the point you were making in that post - whether my expertise is with using someone else's cloud hosting services or with providing cloud hosting services to someone else?
I wasn't "making any point" with that distinction, I was drawing a distinction.
In other words, your post was utterly irrelevant to anything said in this topic?
Because I'm relatively sure that you've never run a cloud hosting company, but it's quite possible that you've used the services of one, and I wanted to disambiguate so that you wouldn't end up answering "no" to the wrong question.
The funny thing is that I am working for a cloud hosting company right now, but have zero experience as a user.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In other words, your post was utterly irrelevant to anything said in this topic?
I was asking because if you'd ever deployed an app to a cloud service, you would know that literally the first thing you do is pick the location of the data center. The nonsense you were spouting about the app being:
Broken into million tiny pieces in thousand different jurisdictions! It's very likely the jurisdiction of the order confirmation page is completely different from the jurisdiction of the payment page!
simply does not exist, as @Unperverted-Vixen pointed out above.
The funny thing is that I am working for a cloud hosting company right now
Then you already know this and are just trolling and being disingenuous. Please keep that in the Garage.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The funny thing is that I am working for a cloud hosting company right now
Then you already know this and are just trolling and being disingenuous.
Nope, we literally switch over to servers half the globe away mid-transaction, in case of failure or just for load-balancing. I am genuinely surprised there are cloud providers who DON'T do that by default.
-
@Mason_Wheeler In a much simpler scenario, I have a small online business that uses cheap shared hosting with a datacenter in another state. My business is located in Texas. The location of the servers hosting my site is a complete red herring.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler In a much simpler scenario, I have a small online business that uses cheap shared hosting with a datacenter in another state. My business is located in Texas. The location of the servers hosting my site is a complete red herring.
All by itself, it would be. But I wasn't using it all by itself. My claim has always been that if the business and the servers are both located in the US, then the EU has no grounds conclude that there is business being conducted in the EU when the company has nothing (neither offices nor servers) in the EU.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The funny thing is that I am working for a cloud hosting company right now
Then you already know this and are just trolling and being disingenuous.
Nope, we literally switch over to servers half the globe away mid-transaction, in case of failure or just for load-balancing. I am genuinely surprised there are cloud providers who DON'T do that by default.
Of course they don't do that by default. How does that even work? How can that even theoretically work If the server has any persistent state, (session data, for example,) what you just described implies a massive nightmare of synchronization infrastructure.
-
@Mason_Wheeler yes, it absolutely was a nightmare to synchronize. But we've got it working and it runs very well now!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
How can that even theoretically work
The buzzword is "eventually consistent." (Which is code for, "it doesn't.")
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler In a much simpler scenario, I have a small online business that uses cheap shared hosting with a datacenter in another state. My business is located in Texas. The location of the servers hosting my site is a complete red herring.
All by itself, it would be. But I wasn't using it all by itself. My claim has always been that if the business and the servers are both located in the US, then the EU has no grounds conclude that there is business being conducted in the EU when the company has nothing (neither offices nor servers) in the EU.
Somewhere there was a discussion of state jurisdiction. I'm lost now.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler In a much simpler scenario, I have a small online business that uses cheap shared hosting with a datacenter in another state. My business is located in Texas. The location of the servers hosting my site is a complete red herring.
All by itself, it would be. But I wasn't using it all by itself. My claim has always been that if the business and the servers are both located in the US, then the EU has no grounds conclude that there is business being conducted in the EU when the company has nothing (neither offices nor servers) in the EU.
Somewhere there was a discussion of state jurisdiction. I'm lost now.
Yeah, that was kind of the point: distraction and confusion. The state jurisdiction talk was nonsense that's best ignored, as jurisdiction over interstate commerce is the domain of the federal government.
-
@error somewhere there was a discussion of international corporations with offices in every civilized country in the world disregarding privacy laws. I'm lost now too.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
By the principle of dual criminality, if it's illegal in the US but not in your jurisdiction, they can't extradite you.
The US requests extradition in exactly those circumstances - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon had never been to the US and what he did was not illegal in the UK. Fortunately he was eventually not extradited, but that doesn't mean the US didn't try to apply its laws abroad.
So... the guy did something that did not meet the dual criminality standard, and he didn't get extradited. My point exactly.
But they did try, didn't they?
Now please show us a case of a US-based mom-and-pop shop or whatever it is you're pretending to argue about which has no presence in the EU, did not do business in the EU, got threatened with a "EU protection racket", and courts actually enforced anything in that regard? Because you just moved the goalpost from your original "asserting universal jurisdiction" to actually enforcing it. To which the US really is much closer than the EU.
-
@Gąska I have been lost for quite a while, but it was amusing nonetheless. Thanks for that
Anyway, it just boils down to a legislator (EU) stating "if you want to provide services to citizens under our jurisdiction, then you have to play by our rules". A legislator doesn't really care if it doesn't make economic sense for the service provider to follow those rules, or if that service provider also applies those rules outside of said jurisdiction. Wilfully breaking the rules should be punished, which is easy if there is a legal entity representing the service provider within the legislator's jurisdiction, otherwise they can (and will, e.g. The pirate bay is blocked by ISPs by court order in NL) block the service provider urls.
Every country does this, and is just a fact of life if you want to provide services worldwide.
And FB should stop whining.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
By the principle of dual criminality, if it's illegal in the US but not in your jurisdiction, they can't extradite you.
The US requests extradition in exactly those circumstances - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon had never been to the US and what he did was not illegal in the UK. Fortunately he was eventually not extradited, but that doesn't mean the US didn't try to apply its laws abroad.
So... the guy did something that did not meet the dual criminality standard, and he didn't get extradited. My point exactly.
But they did try, didn't they?
Now please show us a case of a US-based mom-and-pop shop or whatever it is you're pretending to argue about which has no presence in the EU, did not do business in the EU, got threatened with a "EU protection racket", and courts actually enforced anything in that regard? Because you just moved the goalpost from your original "asserting universal jurisdiction" to actually enforcing it. To which the US really is much closer than the EU.
People have shown the converse: An American company [Google] used an American server to show information to an American customer that the EU claimed violated the GDPR.
Since that transaction didn't have any nexus in the EU, the EU's claim was asserting universal jurisdiction. They got the court to go along with it.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Zenith said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I don't understand why sales tax isn't just split between two locations. If I'm in Pennsylvania and I buy something from Wisconsin, it would make sense to charge half the order at 6% and the other half at 5%. Or charge half of each state's rate on the entire amount, same deal.
The way they do it now just punishes people in states with a higher sales tax. Oh, you can say they want me to spend in my own state. Well, genius, if there were stores here willing to exchange goods for money, I would. But there aren't, so I have to waste resources getting stuff shipped from everywhere else.
Who gets the money? PA wants 100% of the total. WI wants 100% of the total. Who's entitled to it?
In many states, the tax on some transactions is technically a use tax, not a sales tax, even though it's commonly called sales tax. So you pay the tax in the jurisdiction in which you use it, which may not be the one in which you buy it. For example, when I lived in WA, if I would have bought a car in OR, I would have had to pay WA tax on it, because that is where I lived and used it. (OR has no sales/use tax, so this was a popular way to save money when buying a car. Use the address of a friend or relative in OR to register the vehicle and avoid the high WA tax. I was once told that if you drive an expensive motorhome with OR plates in WA, expect to be pulled over and required to show that you are an OR resident; if you have a WA driver's license, you may find yourself facing a charge of tax evasion.) It's complicated by the fact that the tax is sometimes partially sales tax and partially use tax, and maybe some excise tax thrown in for good measure. However, it's often mostly irrelevant, as states hardly ever try to collect such out of state taxes from individuals, except for big-ticket items like vehicles. OTOH, CA has started adding them to your income tax, based on the assumption that a typical person spends X% of their income on untaxed out of state mail/internet purchases; therefore, pay up, buddy.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In many states, the tax on some transactions is technically a use tax, not a sales tax
Jurisdictions with use taxes generally ALSO charge sales taxes. For example, I bet if a WA car dealership sold a car to a resident of OR, the OR resident would still owe the tax.
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
the paiement might happen at any time, related or not to the signing, the fulfilment of the contract by the seller, any point in between, or after... basically it's not really relevant
From memory of decades ago, when I had a business, for the purposes of CA sales tax, a sale occurs when the goods are delivered. An order is just an order, not a sale, even if it's a prepaid order. And if payment occurs after the goods are delivered, that's just payment of a debt for the goods that were already bought/sold. (I don't remember, if I ever knew, if the possession is transferred through a third party (USPS, FedEx, whatever), whether the sale occurs when they are shipped or received.)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
And every online company worth their salt has exactly such a clause in their Terms of Service, stating that the applicable jurisdiction in case of any dispute is the laws of the location where the company is located.
Heck, I even put that in the loan agreement I wrote up when I loaned some money to my ex-wife, because she was about to move to a different state. (It's kind of moot, though, because I haven't tried to enforce the agreement — and I've been advised that I shouldn't, because of the adverse effect that would have on what has so far been a fairly amicable divorce — and neither of us live within 2000 km of that jurisdiction, now.)
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Yeah, for mail / phone / online ordering in the US the jurisdiction is based on the buyer / shipping location. ... local (state, at least, there can also be county / local in effect, but I don't think you pay that) sales tax applies.
Again, from decades-old CA state law, the tax due was that of the location to which the goods were delivered. If the seller was out of state, the state had no way of collecting the tax from the seller, so the buyer was technically required to report the purchase and pay the tax. (Of course, nobody ever did that — I doubt most people even knew it was required — except businesses, who might report it along with the taxes they had collected from their customers, and the state only tried to collect on big purchases they became aware of, like vehicles that have to be registered.) In state sellers collected and paid tax at the rate for the buyer's location.