Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@robo2 said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Karla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
they are not allowed anywhere near my chocolate
but... but... if not walnuts and raisins, what do you put in your chocolate to make it edible?
Methamphetamine!
This is fake. The company was founded in 1999 and obviously this never existed. (Which is not to say the Nazis didn’t use drugs)
But I know,
.But it's on Wikipedia; it has to be true!
It was widely distributed across German military ranks and divisions, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with millions of tablets being distributed for its stimulant effects and to induce extended wakefulness.[43] Its use by German tank crews also led to it being known as Panzerschokolade ("Tank-Chocolates").[44] and Stuka-Tabletten ("Stuka-Tablets") among Luftwaffe pilots.
Though chocolate was probably a metaphor for how it was eagerly consumed.
-
@dkf said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@hungrier said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Better walnuts than raisins
Those are both fine. It's peanuts that I don't like at all. (No allergy. Just don't like the taste.)
I like them all. But
are not good for diabetes. Wait. Not good when you have diabetes. They are good for diabetes...
-
@robo2 said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Karla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
they are not allowed anywhere near my chocolate
but... but... if not walnuts and raisins, what do you put in your chocolate to make it edible?
Cacao
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@robo2 said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Karla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
they are not allowed anywhere near my chocolate
but... but... if not walnuts and raisins, what do you put in your chocolate to make it edible?
Methamphetamine!
This is fake. The company was founded in 1999 and obviously this never existed. (Which is not to say the Nazis didn’t use drugs)
But I know,
.But it's on Wikipedia; it has to be true!
It was widely distributed across German military ranks and divisions, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with millions of tablets being distributed for its stimulant effects and to induce extended wakefulness.[43] Its use by German tank crews also led to it being known as Panzerschokolade ("Tank-Chocolates").[44] and Stuka-Tabletten ("Stuka-Tablets") among Luftwaffe pilots.
Though chocolate was probably a metaphor for how it was eagerly consumed.
Heh...at my dojo we refer to analgesics (ibuprofen, etc) as Karate Tablets.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@robo2 said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Karla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
they are not allowed anywhere near my chocolate
but... but... if not walnuts and raisins, what do you put in your chocolate to make it edible?
Methamphetamine!
This is fake. The company was founded in 1999 and obviously this never existed. (Which is not to say the Nazis didn’t use drugs)
But I know,
.But it's on Wikipedia; it has to be true!
It was widely distributed across German military ranks and divisions, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with millions of tablets being distributed for its stimulant effects and to induce extended wakefulness.[43] Its use by German tank crews also led to it being known as Panzerschokolade ("Tank-Chocolates").[44] and Stuka-Tabletten ("Stuka-Tablets") among Luftwaffe pilots.
Though chocolate was probably a metaphor for how it was eagerly consumed.
Heh...at my dojo we refer to analgesics (ibuprofen, etc) as Karate Tablets.
Do you get a karate tan too?
-
@Karla no?
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@HardwareGeek said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Raisins in carrot salad
I can kinda understand the rest, even though I probably wouldn't eat them if I had the choice. but this one does not sound appealing to me.
Same. Carrots in a salad? WTF, man?
DuckDuckGo — Privacy, simplified.
The Internet privacy company that empowers you to seamlessly take control of your personal information online, without any tradeoffs.
Shredded carrots, raisins, a little bit of mayo. Homemade, because store-bought has way too much mayo (INB4
"Any mayo is way too much.") — 5x – 10x the proper amount. Kinda like cole slaw, but with carrots instead of cabbage. Some people add other ingredients, like apple or pineapple, or use yoghurt instead of mayo, but I like the simple version.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Karla no?
A judo tan is when you have so many bruises they start connecting.
-
@Karla aaahhhhhhh....I haven't had that for a long time. Maybe with the pandemic I'll get something like that when I go back after such a long layoff. It's common for new people (or people who restart) to have their entire stomach area bruised, but it all goes away after a bit because your skin toughens up or something and you just stop bruising from getting hit.
-
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Karla aaahhhhhhh....I haven't had that for a long time. Maybe with the pandemic I'll get something like that when I go back after such a long layoff. It's common for new people (or people who restart) to have their entire stomach area bruised, but it all goes away after a bit because your skin toughens up or something and you just stop bruising from getting hit.
I first heard it at judo camp, but then you are practicing 2-3 times a day for 5 days.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Heh...at my dojo we refer to analgesics (ibuprofen, etc) as Karate Tablets.
Back in my bike racing days, we kidded that SoAndSo wasn't allowed to have "Vitamin I" before a ride.
-
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It's entirely reasonable for companies which want to sell or provide services to people in [jurisdiction X] to be expected to follow the laws of [jurisdiction X], and that includes competition law. And if they don't, and hide under the cover of being based abroad, then you need to be able to ban them from your market.
The US already does this. Why should US-based companies expect that they can get away without doing so in places where they are the foreign entity?
Let's keep this in proper context. If a US-based company has a server located in the US, and someone from a foreign company visits their US server to perform a business transaction on the US server, it's utterly ridiculous and counter to both logic and reality to declare that the transaction is taking place in, and should be governed by the applicable laws of, any jurisdiction other than the US.
If a foreigner were to take a plane to the US and shop at a physical store, this principle would be obvious and indisputable. Why should it be turned on its head when they take a web browser instead?
-
Walnuts, raisins, peanuts, chocolate chip cookies... all are delicious.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@robo2 said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Karla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
they are not allowed anywhere near my chocolate
but... but... if not walnuts and raisins, what do you put in your chocolate to make it edible?
Methamphetamine!
This is fake. The company was founded in 1999 and obviously this never existed. (Which is not to say the Nazis didn’t use drugs)
But I know,
.But it's on Wikipedia; it has to be true!
It was widely distributed across German military ranks and divisions, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with millions of tablets being distributed for its stimulant effects and to induce extended wakefulness.[43] Its use by German tank crews also led to it being known as Panzerschokolade ("Tank-Chocolates").[44] and Stuka-Tabletten ("Stuka-Tablets") among Luftwaffe pilots.
Though chocolate was probably a metaphor for how it was eagerly consumed.
The widespread use of methamphetamine is now believed to be the answer to the question of "how were the Nazis and the Japanese able to get their rank-and-file soldiers to commit such barbaric, inhuman acts?" Though we didn't really know it at the time, WWII was, in a very real sense, a "War On Drugs."
-
@Mason_Wheeler that must be why they don’t pay taxes in the US but “pay taxes” (€4.99) in Ireland.
-
@Mason_Wheeler The Off-color Jokes thread is
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It's entirely reasonable for companies which want to sell or provide services to people in [jurisdiction X] to be expected to follow the laws of [jurisdiction X], and that includes competition law. And if they don't, and hide under the cover of being based abroad, then you need to be able to ban them from your market.
The US already does this. Why should US-based companies expect that they can get away without doing so in places where they are the foreign entity?
Let's keep this in proper context. If a US-based company has a server located in the US, and someone from a foreign company visits their US server to perform a business transaction on the US server, it's utterly ridiculous and counter to both logic and reality to declare that the transaction is taking place in, and should be governed by the applicable laws of, any jurisdiction other than the US.
If a foreigner were to take a plane to the US and shop at a physical store, this principle would be obvious and indisputable. Why should it be turned on its head when they take a web browser instead?
Is that even a real question? In 2020?...because by that principle, transactions made by US citizens/residents on foreign servers would be governed by the applicable laws of some jurisdiction outside US.
Unless you want both the cake and eat it. Which, obviously, the US government wants. And every other government, too. Hence the tug-of war that is already going on for... twenty years, at least.Btw: "logic and reality" actually say that all these transactions take place at both places at once (
as far as the speed of light allows, of course).
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Let's keep this in proper context. If a US-based company has a server located in the US, and someone from a foreign company visits their US server to perform a business transaction on the US server, it's utterly ridiculous and counter to both logic and reality to declare that the transaction is taking place in, and should be governed by the applicable laws of, any jurisdiction other than the US.
Except with the internet, the shop front is effectively in the user's country. When I visit Amazon it is offering to sell things to me in the UK market, not the US one. I have not flown to the US to make that purchase.
If a company doesn't want to follow UK law on operating that shop front it shouldn't be allowed to set up a shop in the UK.
This isn't just about sales, either. Imagine a porn site being run from a country where the age of consent is 14. Should that site be allowed to offer its content in your market, because it's legal in its home jurisdiction, even though it violates quite serious child porn laws in your country? I think it would also be fair for that site to be blocked if the operating company didn't agree to follow your laws when offering content to your market.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It's entirely reasonable for companies which want to sell or provide services to people in [jurisdiction X] to be expected to follow the laws of [jurisdiction X], and that includes competition law. And if they don't, and hide under the cover of being based abroad, then you need to be able to ban them from your market.
The US already does this. Why should US-based companies expect that they can get away without doing so in places where they are the foreign entity?
Let's keep this in proper context. If a US-based company has a server located in the US, and someone from a foreign company visits their US server to perform a business transaction on the US server, it's utterly ridiculous and counter to both logic and reality to declare that the transaction is taking place in, and should be governed by the applicable laws of, any jurisdiction other than the US.
If a foreigner were to take a plane to the US and shop at a physical store, this principle would be obvious and indisputable. Why should it be turned on its head when they take a web browser instead?
Is that even a real question? In 2020?Yes.
...because by that principle, transactions made by US citizens/residents on foreign servers would be governed by the applicable laws of some jurisdiction outside US.
Obviously.
Unless you want both the cake and eat it. Which, obviously, the US government wants.
Here, have a
.
-
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Let's keep this in proper context. If a US-based company has a server located in the US, and someone from a foreign company visits their US server to perform a business transaction on the US server, it's utterly ridiculous and counter to both logic and reality to declare that the transaction is taking place in, and should be governed by the applicable laws of, any jurisdiction other than the US.
Except with the internet, the shop front is effectively in the user's country. When I visit Amazon it is offering to sell things to me in the UK market, not the US one.
Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.
I have not flown to the US to make that purchase.
You haven't needed to; your browser was able to transport you to the US virtually.
If a company doesn't want to follow UK law on operating that shop front it shouldn't be allowed to set up a shop in the UK.
They didn't. They set up shop in the US, and you used the World Wide Web to visit them there.
This isn't just about sales, either.
Yes, it really is.
Imagine a porn site being run from a country where the age of consent is 14. Should that site be allowed to offer its content in your market, because it's legal in its home jurisdiction, even though it violates quite serious child porn laws in your country? I think it would also be fair for that site to be blocked if the operating company didn't agree to follow your laws when offering content to your market.
Yes, I would expect such a site to be blocked and to come under immense international pressure and -- here's the relevant part -- for users who went there to be charged with crimes in the US because we already have existing criminal statutes about underage sex tourism in foreign countries. But we're not talking about sex crimes here; we're talking about consumer protection laws and the arrogance of certain overreaching nations in thinking they can assert universal jurisdiction over the entire world.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
the arrogance of certain overreaching nations in thinking they can assert universal jurisdiction over the entire world
You're talking about the USA, right? I think you're the only country that tries that.
This proposal is about restricting the operations of companies within the EU market if they don't want to play by EU rules. Nothing about asserting jurisdiction outside the EU.
we're not talking about sex crimes here; we're talking about consumer protection laws
They're both laws that vary by jurisdiction and I don't see why the argument would be different for different types of law.
your browser was able to transport you to the US virtually.
My browser remains in the UK. With something like Amazon that's shipping physical goods, to an address in the UK, allowing me to pay in UK currency, there is no question that that 'shop' is operating in the UK. (This is already partially recognised - companies have to pay VAT on sales relevant to the country they're selling in already.)
-
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
the arrogance of certain overreaching nations in thinking they can assert universal jurisdiction over the entire world
You're talking about the USA, right? I think you're the only country that tries that.
These days it feels like we're the only country that doesn't!
This proposal is about restricting the operations of companies within the EU market if they don't want to play by EU rules. Nothing about asserting jurisdiction outside the EU.
If I have my company located in the US, and all of my servers located in the US, with no assets whatsoever in the EU, and the EU tries to tell me I have to play by their rules because one of their citizens chooses, of their own free will, to visit my business in the US, sure looks to me like they're asserting jurisdiction outside the EU!
we're not talking about sex crimes here; we're talking about consumer protection laws
They're both laws that vary by jurisdiction and I don't see why the argument would be different for different types of law.
You don't see any relevant difference between consumer protection law and violent felonies that violate the autonomy of a person's body? None at all?
your browser was able to transport you to the US virtually.
My browser remains in the UK. With something like Amazon that's shipping physical goods, to an address in the UK, allowing me to pay in UK currency, there is no question that that 'shop' is operating in the UK. (This is already partially recognised - companies have to pay VAT on sales relevant to the country they're selling
into already.)
Yes, that's the way US law works: sales tax is calculated based on the state the customer resides in.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Unless you want both the cake and eat it. Which, obviously, the US government wants.
Here, have a
.Now explain TikTok.
If I have my company located in the US, and all of my servers located in the US, with no assets whatsoever in the EU, and the EU tries to tell me I have to play by their rules because one of their citizens chooses, of their own free will, to visit my business in the US, sure looks to me like they're asserting jurisdiction outside the EU!
And if you actually didn't do business in the EU you could completely ignore that because there's nothing they could do about it. But that's not the case here, as Facebook is raking in billions in the EU market, and that's why they have to comply with EU laws. If they had neither EU subsidies, nor would be doing any business in the EU, there'd be nothing for them to complain about "pulling out" of Europe.
-
@topspin And if it were actually about Facebook, that would be a completely different matter. Facebook has both servers and employees in Europe. If they decide, of their own free will and choice, to establish a business presence in Europe, then obviously they need to abide by European laws when doing so.
But when the EU says that their rules also apply to businesses that have not chosen to do so, that's crossing a hard line that cannot and must not be tolerated, and that's what the GDPR has done.
-
@Mason_Wheeler let me quote the OP headline:
Proposal would give EU power to boot tech giants out of European market
Can't boot you out of the European market if you're not in the European market.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin And if it were actually about Facebook, that would be a completely different matter. Facebook has both servers and employees in Europe. If they decide, of their own free will and choice, to establish a business presence in Europe, then obviously they need to abide by European laws when doing so.
But when the EU says that their rules also apply to businesses that have not chosen to do so, that's crossing a hard line that cannot and must not be tolerated, and that's what the GDPR has done.
Oh, so we are now talking about GDPR affecting companies without any presence in EU?
or ?
-
@Kamil-Podlesak That's what it's always been about. Universal jurisdiction is a legal abomination that has no legitimacy and must not be legitimized.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Kamil-Podlesak That's what it's always been about. Universal jurisdiction is a legal abomination that has no legitimacy and must not be legitimized.
I see - Cato the Elder meets Blakey the Rat
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Kamil-Podlesak That's what it's always been about. Universal jurisdiction is a legal abomination that has no legitimacy and must not be legitimized.
So, out of curiosity: If I use my computer to do something that is illegal under US law but never step foot in the US, the US won't try to have me extradited?
-
@topspin By the principle of dual criminality, if it's illegal in the US but not in your jurisdiction, they can't extradite you.
Selling goods and services online without paying protection money to the EU is not illegal in the USA.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Kamil-Podlesak That's what it's always been about. Universal jurisdiction is a legal abomination that has no legitimacy and must not be legitimized.
So, out of curiosity: If I use my computer to do something that is illegal under US law but never step foot in the US, the US won't try to have me extradited?
It depends.
-
Are the victims in the US? If you were an African scamming Europeans, probably not - even if the scam is illegal in the US.
-
This is why extradition laws work the way they do. If two countries decide their laws are compatible, it's probably likely that a criminal who will commit crimes in a foreign country will commit crimes in a domestic country also. There's extradition disputes over laws being incompatible ALL THE TIME.
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Selling goods and services online without paying protection money to the EU is not illegal in the USA.
Obviously, since no such thing exists.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Selling goods and services online without paying protection money to the EU is not illegal in the USA.
Obviously, since no such thing exists.
What do you call the requirement of hiring a GDPR compliance officer? That's a straight-up protection racket and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
That's a straight-up protection racket and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
And anyone who says so is straight up retarded.
-
@mods, the Garage is leaking again.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Let's keep this in proper context. If a US-based company has a
serverbrowser located in the US, and someone from a foreign companyvisitssends a page to their USserverbrowser to perform a business transaction on the USserverbrowser, it's utterly ridiculous and counter to both logic and reality to declare that the transaction is taking place in, and should be governed by the applicable laws of, any jurisdiction other than the US.
If a foreigner were to take a plane to the US andshopsell something at a physical store, this principle would be obvious and indisputable. Why should it be turned on its head when they take a web browser instead?FTFY
Why would the location of the server matter more than the location of the browser? Because that's were the seller's company records are? But the buyer's company records are on the browser, so why would the seller have more authority than the buyer in deciding where the transaction takes place?
-
@remi Because once you start taking things that are exactly the same as doing something in the physical world and tack "but on a computer" on the end and claiming that it's now fundamentally different, all sorts of serious problems ensue. This was recognized by the Supreme Court a few years back, in a case that quite rightfully put an end to some serious patent abuse along those lines, but the principle doesn't only apply to patents.
-
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Imagine a porn site being run from a country where the age of consent is 14. Should that site be allowed to offer its content in your market, because it's legal in its home jurisdiction, even though it violates quite serious child porn laws in your country? I think it would also be fair for that site to be blocked if the operating company didn't agree to follow your laws when offering content to your market.
I think that actually happened, and the site did get shut down.
-
@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, and the location of the browser is not. There is no reliable way for someone making a website to reject users who fall under the aegis of GDPR.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
tack "but on a computer" on the end and claiming that it's now fundamentally different,
boatcrime.com >
-
-
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Because the location of the server is fixed
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Imagine a porn site being run from a country where the age of consent is 14. Should that site be allowed to offer its content in your market, because it's legal in its home jurisdiction, even though it violates quite serious child porn laws in your country? I think it would also be fair for that site to be blocked if the operating company didn't agree to follow your laws when offering content to your market.
I think that actually happened, and the site did get shut down.
Source?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Source?
20 year old hazy memories. I distinctly recall seeing a raunchy banner ad flouting lower age of consent in... Sweden? Holland? Somewhere around there.
Filed under: They're practically the same place, right?
-
@error Wouldn't surprise me. Apparently the age of consent in Japan is surprisingly low (source is an Internet comedian, so may not be 100% reliable) so why wouldn't it be in other places? But to make porn of that and put it online worldwide? That's just asking for it.
-
@Mason_Wheeler It's worth noting that the 90s were basically total anarchy online. Usenet alt.binaries was(?) full of illegal content.
(memories of trying to piece together a 60 file segmented uuencoded archive of warez software, with several corrupt files)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Because once you start taking things that are exactly the same as doing something in the physical world and tack "but on a computer" on the end and claiming that it's now fundamentally different, all sorts of serious problems ensue.
So you agree that if a salesman comes to your door and sells you something, the jurisdiction that applies is where you live, not where the salesman lives?
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Because once you start taking things that are exactly the same as doing something in the physical world and tack "but on a computer" on the end and claiming that it's now fundamentally different, all sorts of serious problems ensue.
So you agree that if a salesman comes to your door and sells you something, the jurisdiction that applies is where you live, not where the salesman lives?
If the salesman comes to me where I live, then the transaction indisputably occurs where I live.
If I go to the salesman's place of business, the transaction just as indisputably occurs at that place of business, not at the place where I live. Stop being disingenuous and throwing out false analogies to confuse the issue.
History and culture of substituted amphetamines - Wikipedia
