Where is this article saying Teslas drive 2.67 billion miles per year in the US? Article is talking about global numbers.
I did miss that, but since over 50% of Tesla owners are from the US, and European drivers drive much less than US drivers (7k-11k per year as opposed to 12k-15k in the US), it's likely that around 1.6-1.8 billion of those miles are in the US. So I guess a Tesla is only around 2-3 times safer than an average car.
That is Elon's point as well. Disproportionately covering Tesla crashes keeps the general public ignorant of Tesla's actual safety record.
Tesla vehicles currently drive about 2.67 billion miles per year (as of July 2017). That is about 0.083% of all miles driven in the US. This means you would expect about 33-34 deaths per year in Tesla cars, without adjusting for the demographics and behaviors of Tesla drivers compared to the US average. In 2016 there were 5 deaths, making Tesla cars about 6-7 times safer than average (again without adjusting for driver demographics).
Considering the average driver age (by miles driven) is about 43, and Tesla average driver age is 53, you would expect slightly less driver deaths in Teslas. Although considering driver deaths by age are fairly consistent between ages 35-70 (with 16-30 and 75+ being much higher), perhaps there would be another 1-2 Tesla driver deaths if they had drivers of a more average age. So after taking that into account, maybe Teslas are only 4-5 times safer than an average car. Then again your average Tesla driver probably likes to accelerate faster than your average 53 year old driver, so maybe on average Tesla drivers are just as safe or even less safe than average drivers.
Teslas are also much newer than the average car. The average car on the road is about 11 years old, and my guess is the average Tesla is around 3-4 years old. 3 year old cars are about 20% safer than 11 year old cars on average, so again Tesla might kill another 1-2 people per year if they were a bit older. So perhaps Teslas are only 3-4 times safer than your average car.
The only thing that isn't disputable is that Teslas are far safer than your average car. If every car was as safe as a Tesla, its possible that 75% or more of all traffic deaths would be prevented. It's hard to tell just how many 10's of thousands of lives would be saved each year if all cars were as safe as Teslas because there are so many factors, but it would certainly be a lot.
Kids aren't expensive. They're so cheap poor people have lots of them.
The advantages you want to give your kids may very well be expensive. In fact, the richer you are, the more likely you are to give your kid lots of things, and that gets expensive. So rich people think kids are really expensive, and don't have as many.
That is true, but there is more to it. The biggest cost of children for the middle class and above is the opportunity cost of having children. The poor have very low opportunity costs for having children because the secondary wage earner is probably either unemployed or very close to minimum wage. If your family's lowest wage earner is making a six figure salary, the opportunity cost is very high.
We do buy our kids lots of things, and go on nice vacations, but nothing compares to the cost of child care (to allow my wife to work) or paying for a house in a good school district. Those two costs are two thirds of the total cost of having children for us, which is why I cannot wait until my youngest is in kindergarten.
I hold the title of a "Data Analytics Manager", I don't get paid even 1/2 of what this article shows, and yes -- you are completely correct.
In fairness, there is a huge difference between what nearly all companies call "Data Analytics" and the Data Science jobs making $300k+. My wife is also a data analytics manager (not her exact title, but close enough), and she makes just over a third that amount. A significant portion of the job is very similar, such as cleaning data sets and doing the business analysis necessary to know what questions to ask of the data, but the actual analysis performed by data scientists requires significantly more mathematical rigor (at least for the highly paid ones, not just the ones inflating their title).
My wife's job is still very complex and takes a high level of skill (like most jobs which pay $100k+) but it certainly doesn't require a PhD in Mathematics, or even for her to be good at math (she isn't). She never needs to provide a range of estimates or confidence intervals; her estimates have more to do with intuition and experience over formulas.
Well educated, higher income parents families actually have fewer children then less educated, lower income ones. This holds true for European countries which check all the boxes on your wishlist's. Un-intuitively, putting all-their-eggs in one basket makes more sense for families that have a lot of resources and for ones that have have few, many and hope for the best
I wonder how much of that would change if society collectively took on more of the burden of children instead of mostly just the parents. My wife and I are well educated, and we would have 3-4 kids if they weren't so expensive (we have 2 instead). Probably all we would have to do is treat child care as a cost of business and make 100% of it tax deductible and we would have had a third child.
Maybe the ecahhhhnamy needs to be restructured so it can function even without continuous growth, sprawl, and environmental depredation.
The economy would run just fine without continuous exponential growth, it is only our standard of living which would be reduced. Currently most adults are burdened with supporting their children for 18+ years while they are not productive, but they are not burdened with supporting their parents for 30+ years of retirement. Exponential growth of the economy currently allows us to save around 20% of our salary throughout our career and then live off the proceeds while retired because it grew exponentially. If that level of growth stopped, we would simply need to save around 50+% of our salary throughout our careers. Either that or we would be spending nearly half our salaries supporting our parents.
Depending on how long our economy's exponential growth continues, that eventual reduction in our standard of living may still be much higher than we have today.
It's especially hard to predict because it might depend on the parameters it's programmed with and the hardware architecture it runs on.
This is both why making predictions is so hard, and why making predictions is such an important exercise. How a self aware AI behaves will largely depend on what motivates it. Humans may feel that our free will that motivates us, but in reality the chemicals in our body such as dopamine are the real sources of our behavior. So to answer this question properly I think you have to contemplate what will be the AI's version of dopamine or our brain's striatum? (to name just two factors)
This will be largely dependent on how the neural networks (if it is based on a NN) are developed, both at the software and hardware level. Perhaps it is programmed to "enjoy" being correct, which would be useful for an AI used for information-based jobs. The AI's primary motivation could simply be to produce correct answers to any questions it finds, and when not asked questions it just sits there waiting for more questions. Its inner contemplation could simply be how could it improve its ability to answer the next question it is asked, or to find new questions itself.
Humans would find no motivation to do anything without certain portions of our brain responsible for rewards and the chemicals which impact our thought process. A self-aware AI would be no different. Its behavior will depend on what it is programmed to care about, whether directly or indirectly.
VTI has lower fees and diversifies better than the S&P.
That kind of detail depends on the funds available in your 401k plan. I would put all of my money into VTI and VTIAX (the international version), but I've never had VTI available in any of my 401k plans. That is why I spread my money between Vanguard's high cap (S&P500), mid cap, and small cap, which becomes very close to simply investing in VTI.
The current split of VTI is about 75% high cap, 20% mid cap, 5% small cap. Actually after researching it I am going to go down a bit in mid/small cap to match the VTI a little better.
a new fangled 401ks that I realize I need a financial professional to help manage to get ROI
As an FYI, just pick the lowest fee S&P tracking fund you can find. All paid advice just costs you money in fees and doesn't help. It is arguably a little better if you spread it among low fee high cap, mid cap, small cap, and international index funds (I currently have a 50%, 25%, 15%, 10% in one fund from each category).
Also ignore the advice that you should have 100 minus age percent of your 401k in stocks (and the rest in bonds). That rule is becoming closer to 125 minus age today. For example the three largest target date funds (Fidelity, Vanguard, T Row Price) range between 75%-85% in stocks for 50 year old investors. I personally advocate 100% stock until at least 45 (I don't plan on going below 100% until age 50, unless we happen to be in a downturn then).
You don't really need much more advice than this to do well with your 401k. Barring a major societal collapse that makes the Great Depression look like a bull market, you will make a great ROI just following index funds.
And yet you think free money for everyone for life is plausible? Now who's delusional?
Well, free money for everyone for life is certainly plausible. It would take less than $4 million dollars, or about 2-3 tomahawk missiles, each year to give every man, woman, and child one cent each year. Once you admit that is sustainable, it is merely a question of how much free money is sustainable. You may think that number is $100 per year, or $10,000 per year, but some amount is certainly sustainable.
What people who complain about UBI often ignore in their comments is that UBI is not fundamentally different than any progressive tax system. If you take all government spending in the US ($6.9 trillion in 2017), only households making over around $125k-$150k are paying their "fair share".
Such insane pricing would give rise to 'generic' unauthorized versions. You take a flight to some shady country, don't ask too many questions, and you get a pirated version of the $50k medication for $20.
If this was actually a problem, and resource scarcity hasn't been solved, then it would be quite easy for governments to track people who are 150 years old and shouldn't be. Or you show up at an emergency room with a 20 year old's body but an 80 year old birth certificate. A rogue nation without the necessary controls would be treated like a rogue nuclear nation today, with all the sanctions to go with it.
When something as dangerous as medication which could get populations to 20 billion in no time, necessary controls will be created. Just like how nuclear and chemical weapons were treated different than hand guns or tanks.
I think there's a reasonable chance that we'll see this in our lifetimes and it may be things like war that ends up killing people instead of "natural causes".
More likely it will be being middle class or lower which kills people, once it is priced at $50k per year per person (in 2018 dollars) to stop this from creating too much of a strain on resources.
Couldn't agree more. If you think this job is tough try roofing or nearly any other construction related job. I did that for one summer and even growing up on a farm didn't compare. It is still a constant reminder of why I am blessed to have a desk job.
I'm not aware of any such agreement, but you're welcome to point me to it. There is the US-EU privacy shield, but that reduces liability under EU law,
The US-EU privacy does have a section related to enforcement of laws related to EU privacy breaches. The link to that section of the the framework is here but I am not aware of every US statute related to US compliance with this framework.
Of course, if such an agreement exists, US companies still wouldn't be liable under EU law, they would be liable under US law.
This is true, once the US makes these agreements they become US law. They are US laws which are made to ensure EU laws are followed by US companies, but they are still US laws. I wasn't getting into that level of detail with the semantics because the result is still the same: EU member countries will be able to directly fine US companies, like they do today for other similar laws. New US laws will continuously be created to help ensure US companies follow GDPR as well.
I manage the CRM of a US financial institution with EU clients and there is guidance
So, how many $hundreds of thousands did some legal team charge your employer that guidance, not to mention ongoing guidance and review?
Quite a few. We also have to pay for janitorial services, internet access, and other costs of doing business.
The scope of your company's data gathering operations will determine how much effort you need to take in complying with the GDPR. Nearly all small businesses in the US can get away with no effort or perhaps a few thousand in legal fees. The GDPR gives significant leniency for "inadvertent" violations of their policies for companies you wouldn't normally expect to even understand the laws (such as small online stores).
In short, if you are small enough that a hundred thousand in legal fees is unreasonable, and your business model is not built around the sale and distribution of customer data, you don't have to worry about the GDPR much.
I didn't reach them. They reached out to me. They *CAME* to *me*, my server, on U.S. soil, in U.S. jurisdiction, under a U.S. business license. When their country is sending my country money for processing and handling for their citizens' interactions, we can talk.
Then you should pay attention to how the US government sets up its own civil enforcement agreements with the EU regarding GDPR violations. The US has a vested interest in making it easier for US companies to sell to EU citizens and operate in the EU, which is why they already have frameworks such as the EU-US Privacy Shield exist.
I assure you the US government will assist the EU in enforcing fines on US companies related to GDPR.
Counter-claim: I (owner) am a US resident. My server is in the US. I shipped from the US. I don't have to care what EU law says any more than I have to care what Iranian law says.
Not true, because the US has a far closer relationship with the EU than they do Iran. The US civil courts will almost certainly uphold EU fines related to the GDPR.
EU customers using a business outside the EU are responsible for complying with the laws under which the business operates. The EU does not get to dictate to businesses in other countries how they operate.
That simply isn't how the law works. If your home country is resistant to work with the EU, you will probably be safe from penalties unless you have a physical presence in the EU. But if for instance you do business in the US, there are existing agreements between the US and EU which allow EU countries to enforce certain fines on US companies. The US government is still working through how local enforcement of GDPR penalties will be handled in US civil courts, but I assure you the final agreement will allow EU member nations to penalize US companies for violations to the GDPR.
fair enough. So the US Government should be given access to any data if it ever passed through a US server since they were serviced in the US and thus are subject to their laws. (Change US with any other country if you want) You are essentially saying extra territorial enforcement of laws is OK.
Extra territorial enforcement of laws is perfectly okay, but the enforcement of those laws will be limited by the enforcement options available to each foreign government. Some enforcement options may be granted by treaty or other agreement. Some may be granted by control they have other the payment methods used by their citizens.
If you violate GDPR from within the US, it's not like the EU will execute you. You will pay penalties. The manner in which the EU will enforce these penalities relies on a mix of their authority, jurisprudence, and international law. If you have a physical presence in the EU, that makes things easier. For those who don't have a physical presence, their ability to enforce penalties will have more to do with the EU's relationship with the business's home country. The US for instance has a very close relationship with the EU, and are actively working through the civil enforcement mechanisms for the GDPR. Using the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield data sharing agreement as a guide, my guess is the US will enforce EU fines on US companies.
so by your reasoning... if some Chinese person calls me on my phone, I have to follow chineses law with regards to what I can and cannot say
Heck, China could create a rule that you can't say anything on US domestic calls either. Maybe they have a law where Americans can't wear blue. Who cares? If a country has such ridiculous rules then don't travel to that country or do business in that country. If your country would extradite you to China for breaking these rules, or allow any fines to be collected by local authorities, you need to move to a new country.
Every website YOU can write will alwayas fail to comply with the laws of North Korea and Iran.
By following your logic, you have to follow every asinine law that any stupid government in any jurisdiction has invented.
It's impossible to follow all laws of all countries just because your network connection is reachable from there. It would be ridiculous to demand otherwise.
Who cares if you break North Korean law? Don't go there and you'll be fine. Actively block their users if you care that much. North Korea is free to fine you, but if you don't have any money in their banks or any banks which would allow North Korea to take your money, you'll be fine. The same is true for any country.
Not lying, just obfuscating to the point where they know that the average person won't bother to read the ToS or work out what "transactional or relationship messages" are.
Which isn't lying. They offer a free product, so you are the product. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether you read and comprehend all the privacy policies that are presented to you on the internet for every site that you interact with... and whether you think that that can be a reasonable thing to expect people to do.
No, I generally don't read any of them. But without thoroughly reading them you should simply assume all of the data you share can be shared with anyone. You should always assume the first time you type a phone number, address, etc. into a web form it is now public information, just like sending a nude selfie over SMS. Even payment methods such as credit cards are only possible because the card companies cancel / reimburse for fraudulent activity and send new cards, because you would be foolish to assume your credit card number is safe either.
You can certainly expect a higher level of privacy if you wish, but it will take significant effort on your part every time to interact with a new service to thoroughly understand their privacy policies. If you don't put in that time, then assume no privacy if you freely give information to a 3rd party.
Discuss the impact of EU websites whose entire business model is collecting and selling EU user data.
Also: How does this impact Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and others?
The short answer is no one knows for sure, as it will take time to see how companies implement changes and how the courts handle GDPR.
It will be more difficult. Many sites will need to deny service unless a user provides consent to sell data to third parties, or perhaps provide a paid option. Data brokers will likely be used so sites don't need to ask permission for every single company they sell your data to. Data brokers will have strict requirements regarding how they provide proof a user has given consent, and provide a mechanism to update data (not sure how well this will work in practice). Lawsuits are inevitable so these data brokers will need to work hefty legal fees in their business model for the foreseeable future, and probably set up their corporations so they can be easily dissolved in the case they lose a case.
As for companies like Google and Facebook, they will mostly do what they do today. Allow advertisers to target customers directly on their sites without needing to provide that customer data to advertisers. I'm sure there will be some changes to their business model, but it will be among the easiest GDPR releated changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is this article saying Teslas drive 2.67 billion miles per year in the US? Article is talking about global numbers.
I did miss that, but since over 50% of Tesla owners are from the US, and European drivers drive much less than US drivers (7k-11k per year as opposed to 12k-15k in the US), it's likely that around 1.6-1.8 billion of those miles are in the US. So I guess a Tesla is only around 2-3 times safer than an average car.
That is Elon's point as well. Disproportionately covering Tesla crashes keeps the general public ignorant of Tesla's actual safety record.
Tesla vehicles currently drive about 2.67 billion miles per year (as of July 2017). That is about 0.083% of all miles driven in the US. This means you would expect about 33-34 deaths per year in Tesla cars, without adjusting for the demographics and behaviors of Tesla drivers compared to the US average. In 2016 there were 5 deaths, making Tesla cars about 6-7 times safer than average (again without adjusting for driver demographics).
Considering the average driver age (by miles driven) is about 43, and Tesla average driver age is 53, you would expect slightly less driver deaths in Teslas. Although considering driver deaths by age are fairly consistent between ages 35-70 (with 16-30 and 75+ being much higher), perhaps there would be another 1-2 Tesla driver deaths if they had drivers of a more average age. So after taking that into account, maybe Teslas are only 4-5 times safer than an average car. Then again your average Tesla driver probably likes to accelerate faster than your average 53 year old driver, so maybe on average Tesla drivers are just as safe or even less safe than average drivers.
Teslas are also much newer than the average car. The average car on the road is about 11 years old, and my guess is the average Tesla is around 3-4 years old. 3 year old cars are about 20% safer than 11 year old cars on average, so again Tesla might kill another 1-2 people per year if they were a bit older. So perhaps Teslas are only 3-4 times safer than your average car.
The only thing that isn't disputable is that Teslas are far safer than your average car. If every car was as safe as a Tesla, its possible that 75% or more of all traffic deaths would be prevented. It's hard to tell just how many 10's of thousands of lives would be saved each year if all cars were as safe as Teslas because there are so many factors, but it would certainly be a lot.
Kids aren't expensive. They're so cheap poor people have lots of them.
The advantages you want to give your kids may very well be expensive. In fact, the richer you are, the more likely you are to give your kid lots of things, and that gets expensive. So rich people think kids are really expensive, and don't have as many.
That is true, but there is more to it. The biggest cost of children for the middle class and above is the opportunity cost of having children. The poor have very low opportunity costs for having children because the secondary wage earner is probably either unemployed or very close to minimum wage. If your family's lowest wage earner is making a six figure salary, the opportunity cost is very high.
We do buy our kids lots of things, and go on nice vacations, but nothing compares to the cost of child care (to allow my wife to work) or paying for a house in a good school district. Those two costs are two thirds of the total cost of having children for us, which is why I cannot wait until my youngest is in kindergarten.
I hold the title of a "Data Analytics Manager", I don't get paid even 1/2 of what this article shows, and yes -- you are completely correct.
In fairness, there is a huge difference between what nearly all companies call "Data Analytics" and the Data Science jobs making $300k+. My wife is also a data analytics manager (not her exact title, but close enough), and she makes just over a third that amount. A significant portion of the job is very similar, such as cleaning data sets and doing the business analysis necessary to know what questions to ask of the data, but the actual analysis performed by data scientists requires significantly more mathematical rigor (at least for the highly paid ones, not just the ones inflating their title).
My wife's job is still very complex and takes a high level of skill (like most jobs which pay $100k+) but it certainly doesn't require a PhD in Mathematics, or even for her to be good at math (she isn't). She never needs to provide a range of estimates or confidence intervals; her estimates have more to do with intuition and experience over formulas.
Well educated, higher income parents families actually have fewer children then less educated, lower income ones. This holds true for European countries which check all the boxes on your wishlist's. Un-intuitively, putting all-their-eggs in one basket makes more sense for families that have a lot of resources and for ones that have have few, many and hope for the best
I wonder how much of that would change if society collectively took on more of the burden of children instead of mostly just the parents. My wife and I are well educated, and we would have 3-4 kids if they weren't so expensive (we have 2 instead). Probably all we would have to do is treat child care as a cost of business and make 100% of it tax deductible and we would have had a third child.
Maybe the ecahhhhnamy needs to be restructured so it can function even without continuous growth, sprawl, and environmental depredation.
The economy would run just fine without continuous exponential growth, it is only our standard of living which would be reduced. Currently most adults are burdened with supporting their children for 18+ years while they are not productive, but they are not burdened with supporting their parents for 30+ years of retirement. Exponential growth of the economy currently allows us to save around 20% of our salary throughout our career and then live off the proceeds while retired because it grew exponentially. If that level of growth stopped, we would simply need to save around 50+% of our salary throughout our careers. Either that or we would be spending nearly half our salaries supporting our parents.
Depending on how long our economy's exponential growth continues, that eventual reduction in our standard of living may still be much higher than we have today.
It's especially hard to predict because it might depend on the parameters it's programmed with and the hardware architecture it runs on.
This is both why making predictions is so hard, and why making predictions is such an important exercise. How a self aware AI behaves will largely depend on what motivates it. Humans may feel that our free will that motivates us, but in reality the chemicals in our body such as dopamine are the real sources of our behavior. So to answer this question properly I think you have to contemplate what will be the AI's version of dopamine or our brain's striatum? (to name just two factors)
This will be largely dependent on how the neural networks (if it is based on a NN) are developed, both at the software and hardware level. Perhaps it is programmed to "enjoy" being correct, which would be useful for an AI used for information-based jobs. The AI's primary motivation could simply be to produce correct answers to any questions it finds, and when not asked questions it just sits there waiting for more questions. Its inner contemplation could simply be how could it improve its ability to answer the next question it is asked, or to find new questions itself.
Humans would find no motivation to do anything without certain portions of our brain responsible for rewards and the chemicals which impact our thought process. A self-aware AI would be no different. Its behavior will depend on what it is programmed to care about, whether directly or indirectly.
VTI has lower fees and diversifies better than the S&P.
That kind of detail depends on the funds available in your 401k plan. I would put all of my money into VTI and VTIAX (the international version), but I've never had VTI available in any of my 401k plans. That is why I spread my money between Vanguard's high cap (S&P500), mid cap, and small cap, which becomes very close to simply investing in VTI.
The current split of VTI is about 75% high cap, 20% mid cap, 5% small cap. Actually after researching it I am going to go down a bit in mid/small cap to match the VTI a little better.
a new fangled 401ks that I realize I need a financial professional to help manage to get ROI
As an FYI, just pick the lowest fee S&P tracking fund you can find. All paid advice just costs you money in fees and doesn't help. It is arguably a little better if you spread it among low fee high cap, mid cap, small cap, and international index funds (I currently have a 50%, 25%, 15%, 10% in one fund from each category).
Also ignore the advice that you should have 100 minus age percent of your 401k in stocks (and the rest in bonds). That rule is becoming closer to 125 minus age today. For example the three largest target date funds (Fidelity, Vanguard, T Row Price) range between 75%-85% in stocks for 50 year old investors. I personally advocate 100% stock until at least 45 (I don't plan on going below 100% until age 50, unless we happen to be in a downturn then).
You don't really need much more advice than this to do well with your 401k. Barring a major societal collapse that makes the Great Depression look like a bull market, you will make a great ROI just following index funds.
And yet you think free money for everyone for life is plausible? Now who's delusional?
Well, free money for everyone for life is certainly plausible. It would take less than $4 million dollars, or about 2-3 tomahawk missiles, each year to give every man, woman, and child one cent each year. Once you admit that is sustainable, it is merely a question of how much free money is sustainable. You may think that number is $100 per year, or $10,000 per year, but some amount is certainly sustainable.
What people who complain about UBI often ignore in their comments is that UBI is not fundamentally different than any progressive tax system. If you take all government spending in the US ($6.9 trillion in 2017), only households making over around $125k-$150k are paying their "fair share".
Such insane pricing would give rise to 'generic' unauthorized versions. You take a flight to some shady country, don't ask too many questions, and you get a pirated version of the $50k medication for $20.
If this was actually a problem, and resource scarcity hasn't been solved, then it would be quite easy for governments to track people who are 150 years old and shouldn't be. Or you show up at an emergency room with a 20 year old's body but an 80 year old birth certificate. A rogue nation without the necessary controls would be treated like a rogue nuclear nation today, with all the sanctions to go with it.
When something as dangerous as medication which could get populations to 20 billion in no time, necessary controls will be created. Just like how nuclear and chemical weapons were treated different than hand guns or tanks.
I think there's a reasonable chance that we'll see this in our lifetimes and it may be things like war that ends up killing people instead of "natural causes".
More likely it will be being middle class or lower which kills people, once it is priced at $50k per year per person (in 2018 dollars) to stop this from creating too much of a strain on resources.
A world full of stupid people that live forever. Exactly what we need.
It doesn't have to be cheap enough that everyone can live forever. Perhaps it becomes a prime motivator to work once basic income rolls around.
Couldn't agree more. If you think this job is tough try roofing or nearly any other construction related job. I did that for one summer and even growing up on a farm didn't compare. It is still a constant reminder of why I am blessed to have a desk job.
I'm not aware of any such agreement, but you're welcome to point me to it. There is the US-EU privacy shield, but that reduces liability under EU law,
The US-EU privacy does have a section related to enforcement of laws related to EU privacy breaches. The link to that section of the the framework is here but I am not aware of every US statute related to US compliance with this framework.
Of course, if such an agreement exists, US companies still wouldn't be liable under EU law, they would be liable under US law.
This is true, once the US makes these agreements they become US law. They are US laws which are made to ensure EU laws are followed by US companies, but they are still US laws. I wasn't getting into that level of detail with the semantics because the result is still the same: EU member countries will be able to directly fine US companies, like they do today for other similar laws. New US laws will continuously be created to help ensure US companies follow GDPR as well.
I manage the CRM of a US financial institution with EU clients and there is guidance
So, how many $hundreds of thousands did some legal team charge your employer that guidance, not to mention ongoing guidance and review?
Quite a few. We also have to pay for janitorial services, internet access, and other costs of doing business.
The scope of your company's data gathering operations will determine how much effort you need to take in complying with the GDPR. Nearly all small businesses in the US can get away with no effort or perhaps a few thousand in legal fees. The GDPR gives significant leniency for "inadvertent" violations of their policies for companies you wouldn't normally expect to even understand the laws (such as small online stores).
In short, if you are small enough that a hundred thousand in legal fees is unreasonable, and your business model is not built around the sale and distribution of customer data, you don't have to worry about the GDPR much.
I didn't reach them. They reached out to me. They *CAME* to *me*, my server, on U.S. soil, in U.S. jurisdiction, under a U.S. business license. When their country is sending my country money for processing and handling for their citizens' interactions, we can talk.
Then you should pay attention to how the US government sets up its own civil enforcement agreements with the EU regarding GDPR violations. The US has a vested interest in making it easier for US companies to sell to EU citizens and operate in the EU, which is why they already have frameworks such as the EU-US Privacy Shield exist.
I assure you the US government will assist the EU in enforcing fines on US companies related to GDPR.
Counter-claim: I (owner) am a US resident. My server is in the US. I shipped from the US. I don't have to care what EU law says any more than I have to care what Iranian law says.
Not true, because the US has a far closer relationship with the EU than they do Iran. The US civil courts will almost certainly uphold EU fines related to the GDPR.
EU customers using a business outside the EU are responsible for complying with the laws under which the business operates. The EU does not get to dictate to businesses in other countries how they operate.
That simply isn't how the law works. If your home country is resistant to work with the EU, you will probably be safe from penalties unless you have a physical presence in the EU. But if for instance you do business in the US, there are existing agreements between the US and EU which allow EU countries to enforce certain fines on US companies. The US government is still working through how local enforcement of GDPR penalties will be handled in US civil courts, but I assure you the final agreement will allow EU member nations to penalize US companies for violations to the GDPR.
fair enough. So the US Government should be given access to any data if it ever passed through a US server since they were serviced in the US and thus are subject to their laws. (Change US with any other country if you want) You are essentially saying extra territorial enforcement of laws is OK.
Extra territorial enforcement of laws is perfectly okay, but the enforcement of those laws will be limited by the enforcement options available to each foreign government. Some enforcement options may be granted by treaty or other agreement. Some may be granted by control they have other the payment methods used by their citizens.
If you violate GDPR from within the US, it's not like the EU will execute you. You will pay penalties. The manner in which the EU will enforce these penalities relies on a mix of their authority, jurisprudence, and international law. If you have a physical presence in the EU, that makes things easier. For those who don't have a physical presence, their ability to enforce penalties will have more to do with the EU's relationship with the business's home country. The US for instance has a very close relationship with the EU, and are actively working through the civil enforcement mechanisms for the GDPR. Using the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield data sharing agreement as a guide, my guess is the US will enforce EU fines on US companies.
so by your reasoning ...
if some Chinese person calls me on my phone, I have to follow chineses law with regards to what I can and cannot say
Heck, China could create a rule that you can't say anything on US domestic calls either. Maybe they have a law where Americans can't wear blue. Who cares? If a country has such ridiculous rules then don't travel to that country or do business in that country. If your country would extradite you to China for breaking these rules, or allow any fines to be collected by local authorities, you need to move to a new country.
Every website YOU can write will alwayas fail to comply with the laws of North Korea and Iran.
By following your logic, you have to follow every asinine law that any stupid government in any jurisdiction has invented.
It's impossible to follow all laws of all countries just because your network connection is reachable from there. It would be ridiculous to demand otherwise.
Who cares if you break North Korean law? Don't go there and you'll be fine. Actively block their users if you care that much. North Korea is free to fine you, but if you don't have any money in their banks or any banks which would allow North Korea to take your money, you'll be fine. The same is true for any country.
Not lying, just obfuscating to the point where they know that the average person won't bother to read the ToS or work out what "transactional or relationship messages" are.
Which isn't lying. They offer a free product, so you are the product. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether you read and comprehend all the privacy policies that are presented to you on the internet for every site that you interact with... and whether you think that that can be a reasonable thing to expect people to do.
I mean they are deliberately written to be long and hard to understand https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
No, I generally don't read any of them. But without thoroughly reading them you should simply assume all of the data you share can be shared with anyone. You should always assume the first time you type a phone number, address, etc. into a web form it is now public information, just like sending a nude selfie over SMS. Even payment methods such as credit cards are only possible because the card companies cancel / reimburse for fraudulent activity and send new cards, because you would be foolish to assume your credit card number is safe either.
You can certainly expect a higher level of privacy if you wish, but it will take significant effort on your part every time to interact with a new service to thoroughly understand their privacy policies. If you don't put in that time, then assume no privacy if you freely give information to a 3rd party.
Discuss the impact of EU websites whose entire business model is collecting and selling EU user data.
Also: How does this impact Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and others?
The short answer is no one knows for sure, as it will take time to see how companies implement changes and how the courts handle GDPR.
It will be more difficult. Many sites will need to deny service unless a user provides consent to sell data to third parties, or perhaps provide a paid option. Data brokers will likely be used so sites don't need to ask permission for every single company they sell your data to. Data brokers will have strict requirements regarding how they provide proof a user has given consent, and provide a mechanism to update data (not sure how well this will work in practice). Lawsuits are inevitable so these data brokers will need to work hefty legal fees in their business model for the foreseeable future, and probably set up their corporations so they can be easily dissolved in the case they lose a case.
As for companies like Google and Facebook, they will mostly do what they do today. Allow advertisers to target customers directly on their sites without needing to provide that customer data to advertisers. I'm sure there will be some changes to their business model, but it will be among the easiest GDPR releated changes.