If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and
get the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply
check the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an
alternate page complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse
to deal with Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against
stupidity!
"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and
get the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply
check the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an
alternate page complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse
to deal with Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against
stupidity!
"Where is a whip there is a jurisdiction"
-- Legal realpolitik wisdom
Possible escalation of consequences:
1. Grabbing assents under U,E. jurisdiction
2. Blocking selling adverts in E.U.
3. Firewalling out access to web sites
So: Big+ sites with significant income from U.E. can not ignore
E.U. laws without serious+ consequences.
Anyway: read about "jurisdiction grab" by US courts in case of
E.U./UK(2006) based organisation - it may give you some inspirations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spamhaus_Project#e360_lawsuit
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:35:30 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito <MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:
A. Filip wrote:No it doesn't, gook.
"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:The same, of course, applies to Saudi jurisdiction.
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and
get the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply
check the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an
alternate page complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse
to deal with Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against
stupidity!
"Where is a whip there is a jurisdiction"
-- Legal realpolitik wisdom
Possible escalation of consequences:
1. Grabbing assents under U,E. jurisdiction
2. Blocking selling adverts in E.U.
3. Firewalling out access to web sites
So: Big+ sites with significant income from U.E. can not ignore
E.U. laws without serious+ consequences.
Anyway: read about "jurisdiction grab" by US courts in case of
E.U./UK(2006) based organisation - it may give you some inspirations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spamhaus_Project#e360_lawsuit
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:20:57 PM UTC-7, † The Reverend wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:35:30 -0700, NOT Michael EjercitoMangina, first of all, it is immoral for you to call me a
<MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:
A. Filip wrote:No it doesn't, gook.
"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:The same, of course, applies to Saudi jurisdiction.
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and
get the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply
check the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an
alternate page complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse
to deal with Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against
stupidity!
"Where is a whip there is a jurisdiction"
-- Legal realpolitik wisdom
Possible escalation of consequences:
1. Grabbing assents under U,E. jurisdiction
2. Blocking selling adverts in E.U.
3. Firewalling out access to web sites
So: Big+ sites with significant income from U.E. can not ignore
E.U. laws without serious+ consequences.
Anyway: read about "jurisdiction grab" by US courts in case of
E.U./UK(2006) based organisation - it may give you some inspirations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spamhaus_Project#e360_lawsuit
gook. Calling me a gook addresses no substance.
Second of all, certain Saudi Arabia, under its own laws, could grab
assets under Saudi jurisdiction, block selling adverts in Saudi
Arabia, and firewall out access to web sites.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:57:52 +0100, A. Filip <anfi@wp.eu> wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and
get the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply
check the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an
alternate page complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse
to deal with Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against
stupidity!
"Where is a whip there is a jurisdiction"
-- Legal realpolitik wisdom
Possible escalation of consequences:
1. Grabbing assents under U,E. jurisdiction
2. Blocking selling adverts in E.U.
3. Firewalling out access to web sites
So: Big+ sites with significant income from U.E. can not ignore
E.U. laws without serious+ consequences.
Anyway: read about "jurisdiction grab" by US courts in case of
E.U./UK(2006) based organisation - it may give you some inspirations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spamhaus_Project#e360_lawsuit
ROTFPMSL!
"In January 2008, e360 Insight LLC filed for bankruptcy and closed
down, citing astronomical legal bills associated with this court case
as the reason for its demise."
Why on earth would anyone award anything to a spammer? They should be jailed for spamming.
In 2010, Judge Kocoras reduced the $11.7 million damages award to $27,002[38]—$1 for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, $1 for claims of defamation, and $27,000 for "existing contracts".[39] […] On 2 September 2011 the court reduced the damages
award to just $3 total, and ordered the plaintiff e360 to pay the costs
of the appeal for the defence.[41]
"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and
get the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply
check the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an
alternate page complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse
to deal with Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against
stupidity!
"Where is a whip there is a jurisdiction"
-- Legal realpolitik wisdom
Possible escalation of consequences:
1. Grabbing assents under U,E. jurisdiction
2. Blocking selling adverts in E.U.
3. Firewalling out access to web sites
So: Big+ sites with significant income from U.E. can not ignore
E.U. laws without serious+ consequences.
Anyway: read about "jurisdiction grab" by US courts in case of
E.U./UK(2006) based organisation - it may give you some inspirations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spamhaus_Project#e360_lawsuit
"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:57:52 +0100, A. Filip <anfi@wp.eu> wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If >>>> all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and
get the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply
check the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an
alternate page complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse
to deal with Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against
stupidity!
"Where is a whip there is a jurisdiction"
-- Legal realpolitik wisdom
Possible escalation of consequences:
1. Grabbing assents under U,E. jurisdiction
2. Blocking selling adverts in E.U.
3. Firewalling out access to web sites
So: Big+ sites with significant income from U.E. can not ignore
E.U. laws without serious+ consequences.
Anyway: read about "jurisdiction grab" by US courts in case of
E.U./UK(2006) based organisation - it may give you some inspirations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spamhaus_Project#e360_lawsuit
ROTFPMSL!
"In January 2008, e360 Insight LLC filed for bankruptcy and closed
down, citing astronomical legal bills associated with this court case
as the reason for its demise."
Why on earth would anyone award anything to a spammer? They should be jailed for spamming.
US courts _finally_ awarded 3 USD to e360. It took mere 5 years.
US jurisdiction had been confirmed by all US courts involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spamhaus_Project#e360_lawsuit
In 2010, Judge Kocoras reduced the $11.7 million damages award to
$27,002[38]—$1 for tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage, $1 for claims of defamation, and $27,000 for "existing
contracts".[39] […] On 2 September 2011 the court reduced the damages
award to just $3 total, and ordered the plaintiff e360 to pay the costs
of the appeal for the defence.[41]
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:53:50 |
| Calls: | 9,833 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,193,628 |