[The London Metropolitan Police] Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.
They tell you how to be? How so? If anything, they stopped treating "traditional" constellations with preference.
They are telling you that there ought to be no preference. That's very different from the government simply remaining silent on the question of family structure and child raising.
That means that if there's a provision in any U.S. - EU treaty, saying that you have to abide by EU regulations, when serving EU customers, you simply have to do it. Otherwise your own country may enforce those regulations on you.
Correct, Americans have to obey US laws; Americans do not have to obey European laws. Which is what I was saying. And just because the US signed a treaty with the EU does not mean that the treaty is valid under US law; that is, if there is a conflict, then (portions of) the treaty may become invalidated.
The problem with your argument is not that your don't want to abide by the EU regulations. It is that you want to expand your business to the EU and at the same time not abide by its regulations.
We're not talking about companies "wanting to expand business to the EU", we're talking about US companies doing their business in the US and EU customers using them over the Internet. AirBnB renting European apartments to European customers should be subject to EU rules; AirBnB renting US apartments to European tourists should not be subject to EU rules. In the case of AirBnB, the EU can use AirBnB's desire to expand to Europe to strong-arm the company on US soil, but that doesn't apply to companies who don't care about doing business in the EU.
You are in similar position as an ice-cream van. If you do business from it in Texas, then US laws apply. If you drive into Mexico then make sure that you abide by Mexican laws when selling the goods.
No, the situation is not the same. An ice-cream van needs to be physically close to customers, which is why it falls under the jurisdiction of its customers. But if my ice-cream van stays in Texas and a Mexican mail-orders ice cream cones from me, I don't have to ensure that the transaction complies with Mexican law.
Even inter-state in US you'd have to be careful about what you can and cannot do.
The US generally takes a dim view when one state tries to impose its rules on other states even within the US.
you are sitting in a part of the world where you are probed... You simply don't see your life being an open book to your government as a problem.
Err. No. That is the exact opposite of what I said. An ad hominem followed by a strawman in one paragraph, you're quite good at this whole not having an argument thing.
I understand the world "totalitarian" just fine. It's what you are,
Ahhh so you have no argument and fall back to ad hominem attacks.
Nowhere did I claim it does.
And I quote: "Being fined into oblivion for being on the web by an entity that you have never had interaction with, should be problematic for everyone."
I claimed (correctly)
And you have provided nothing to back up that claim at all.
I'm done. It's quite clear you don't have a clue how this law works, or other laws in the EU for that matter, and can't even follow your own conversation that you have derailed with nothing by ad hominem attacks ever since I called you out to display a burden of proof.
Have a good day.
Err. No. That is the exact opposite of what I said.
Yes, it is the opposite of what you said. That's because you don't realize that you are an open book to your government. The GDPR does not actually protect your data against government spying.
And I quote: "Being fined into oblivion for being on the web by an entity that you have never had interaction with, should be problematic for everyone."
I didn't write that. But even if I did, "being fined by Europe" or having "European rules imposed on us" wouldn't "violate any US rules", but it would still be an infringement on our liberty. Your criterion of saying that "X diminishes American liberties if and only if X conflicts with American rules" itself shows how twisted and totalitarian your thinking is, since it implies that liberties are granted by rules, as opposed to the absence of rules.
I claimed (correctly) that European governments in general have been trying to impose their rules on the rest of the world;
And you have provided nothing to back up that claim at all.
I don't have to. We're not having a debate with audience voting. I am informing you that this is my view. I actually think it is patently obvious, given the GDPR itself, as well as recent examples where Europe has tried to squash legal free speech in the US because it conflicted with European censorship. If you're unfamiliar with those examples or don't understand how they amount to what I'm saying, then the problem lies with you. Fortunately, the US has (so far) told the EU to get lost.
An ad hominem followed... fall back to ad hominem attacks
And argumentum ad hominem would be "you are wrong because you are a European". Calling you a "totalitarian" isn't an argument at all, it's an observation and a conclusion, just one you happen not to like.
Existing delivery systems are very difficult to make yourself and most people working on specific diseases don't - they outsource it to core facilities that do it regularly.
You're thinking like a white coat, not like a hacker. A hacker asks: what can I easily do, and then what useful things can I do with it. What are easy tissues to get? Adipose tissue and blood. Electroporation is easy for introducing stuff. Think about what you can you do with such a system.
I do think that whatever results a self-treater got would be very difficult for others to leverage in the search for a cure.
I think you're too pessimistic, and it depends on the disease. Cancer is likely too messy and too complex. But for other diseases, cause and effect are pretty clearcut. There really is a long list of diseases where there are pretty obvious treatments using CRISPR that people just need to try out. Of course, a lot of that will probably also happen in places like China and Mexico, where authorities care less.
We'll have to disagree on whether that's useful. My reading of the history of science is that there has always been a lot of nonsense when a new technology came out, but that we have also learned a lot from the haphazard experimentation of amateurs and oddballs.
Lots of times those sites are illegal if they don't comply with local regulation
I'm sure lots of things I do are illegal in Europe and North Korea. Why would I care?
and there will be attempts to either block them or fine them.
The EU is perfectly free to impose fines on me all it wants, and it's perfectly free to block its citizens, and I'm perfectly free to ignore them.
If your business model is to attract customers from certain countries then you should be prepared to abide by the laws of those countries.
I only worry about the laws of countries whose jurisdiction I'm subject to; why would I worry about anything else?
And in some cases (e.g., European laws restricting free speech), I make it a point of violating them explicitly, and encourage others to do the same thing.
Medical doctors, often - but PhDs, on the other hand..
Quite right. And a smart, skilled Ph.D. with experience in gene therapy would be a prime candidate to perform such experimentation on himself, despite regulations that prohibit it.
Delivery methods are certainly going to give you safety data. And you can see off-target effects if you use cultured human cells, which most people can't do at home.
First of all, "at home" and "big drug company" is a false dichotomy. There are many people with the education and lab facilities to do a reasonable job, they just happen not to have a $1bn and 10 years for clinical trials.
Second, people aren't starting from scratch. Anybody considering at home gene therapy would likely start with something that's already been used successfully for similar diseases/treatments, including an existing delivery system.
Third, your analysis is true for big drug companies that test lots of treatments and are subject to massive liabilities. But what is rational behavior for a big drug company with a financial motive isn't rational for an individual with an incurable illness. A drug company would never run a clinical trial with a drug that has a 33% chance each of being ineffective, lethal, or curative; but many people with serious incurable illnesses would take such a risk and consider it rational.
Not all, certainly, but a lot. DIY gene therapists often don't have access to good animal models, and generally can't run properly controlled experiments anyway (either lack of resources or lack of ability to create them, or both). More to the point, there's a huge issue of quality control - the process of actually making the stuff for gene therapy is not easy to replicate at home, certainly not without the ability to test it on animals beforehand.
Well, and whose fault is that? Oh, right, the people who are overregulating drug development to the point where only a tiny group of well-connected drug companies can engage in it.
Besides, it's not even true. You can ship out this kind of testing to labs in China. And many people who are interested in this kind of self-experimentation may well be highly qualified researchers with all the necessary lab facilities; all they lack is the resources and patience to wait for 5-10 years of clinical testing and all the b.s. that entails.
CRISPR/Cas9 does not always make predictable changes to DNA. There's mounting evidence that there's a lot more off-target effects than we initially thought, and while people are certainly trying to fix that, those changes will also require more testing.
"Require" in what sense? Who are you to decide what risks other people want to take with their own bodies?
Not all, certainly, but a lot. DIY gene therapists often don't have access to good animal models, and generally can't run properly controlled experiments anyway (either lack of resources or lack of ability to create them, or both).
And it is their choice to take that risk.
More to the point, there's a huge issue of quality control - the process of actually making the stuff for gene therapy is not easy to replicate at home
Again, it's their choice to take that risk.
There is the potential for human gene therapy to progress rapidly, but the much more likely outcome is that a bunch of people fuck it up royally, public trust goes to near-zero, and academic institutions and drug companies can't make progress because people aren't interested in it any more.
That is not a good argument for restricting people's right to control their own body.
New US laws will continuously be created to help ensure US companies follow GDPR as well.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Privacy Shield is. Privacy Shield doesn't extend EU rules to the US, Privacy Shield exempts US companies from EU liability when dealing with European customers in return for following certain practices, and it makes sure that any claims are adjudicated in the US, even for companies that actually have assets in Europe. Privacy Shield isn't the US yielding to EU pressure, it's the EU yielding to US pressure.
Companies who don't opt into Privacy Shield face no liability under US law; they may face liability under EU law, which is unpleasant if they actually want to conduct business in the EU. Anybody else can tell EU courts and EU citizens claiming GDPR protection to go pound sand. Personally, though, I think what companies actually should do is explicitly prohibit anybody falling under GDPR protection from accessing their systems and treat violations as illegal computer access, which is a felony under US law and an extraditable offense.
there are existing agreements between the US and EU which allow EU countries to enforce certain fines on US companies.... but I assure you the final agreement will allow EU member nations to penalize US companies for violations to the GDPR.
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,
Of course, if such an agreement exists, US companies still wouldn't be liable under EU law, they would be liable under US law.
Supernovae are pseudo-science, to give one example.
Observations of supernovas are physically recorded and those recordings can be reviewed by anyone. Supernovas also happen regularly so they can be recorded and observed repeatedly. In addition, astronomers don't draw conclusions about all supernovas from having observed just a few.
We have observations, just like we have observations of cultures, but apparently that's not enough.
No, it's not enough. Astronomers use the scientific method in their observations, anthropologists do not.
I'm not going to justify saying that public schools are a function of government.
I'm not asking you to; by definition, public schools are function of government.
I am asking you to justify the bold face statement that:
Public schools are a function of government, for example, and pupils at bad schools don't have the same opportunity as students in good schools. This is a form of inequality of opportunity the government can address.
That is, given that public schools have a history of a century of massive inequality, where your any evidence that the government can address that inequality? It hasn't done so in such a long time and with so much money that it is reasonable to conclude at this point that government is incapable of addressing inequality of opportunity in public schools at all.
Of course, even that statement of yours is evading the question, because what we were really discussing is whether public schools can address educational inequality better than private schools. But let's first address your misconceptions about public schools before we get to that question.
ADHD medication wouldn't be necessary if we didn't first fill our kids with a million calories and then feel the urge to sedate them when they want to burn that energy somehow. And 10 years later we wonder how we end up with obese kids that have high blood pressure and develop diabetes.
Yes, and government school lunches and governmental nutritional guidelines brought us to this point.
And considering male role models, well, that's something you have in your own hands. Maybe it's worse in the US, here governments don't tell you how to raise your kids.
Are you kidding? Europe has that even worse than the US: government subsidies of single parenthood, government-financed preschool, and an extremely lopsided gender ratio in pre-, primary and secondary school faculty. And European governments, just like the US government, indoctrinates (tells) people what gender roles and family structures they should adopt.
But again I'll wait here patiently sitting in my chair in a part of the world where residents are deemed important enough to not have everything about them probed at all times
Oh, you poor thing, you are sitting in a part of the world where you are probed every microsecond of your little, miserable, constrained life, and you are so indoctrinated and ignorant that you don't even recognize it. And this privacy legislation that you so foolishly believe protects you from probing in fact, ensures that your entire life remains an open book to your government. You simply don't see your life being an open book to your government as a problem. Which brings us to the second point...
Or maybe you just don't understand the word totalitarian, that is quite possible too given the context of the conversation.
I understand the world "totalitarian" just fine. It's what you are, because you evidently have no problem with giving total access and control over your life and data to your government, you simply believe that your government isn't going to misuse that data and instead is going to use it to help you. That is the essence of totalitarianism.
Show us where the GDPR violates some American rules.
Nowhere did I claim it does. I claimed (correctly) that European governments in general have been trying to impose their rules on the rest of the world; the best strategy for that is to try to play regulatory Judo and come up with rules and regulations that don't technically violate anybody else's rules but still achieve your objectives.
It has. Many times. You need to pay more attention to what's happening on European politics and actually understand it, instead of swallowing government propaganda hook line and sinker.
And if you think it has I would invite you to read the GDPR. You'll find it violates not a single regulation of another country.
You are so steeped in the European totalitarian mindset that you equate "not imposing rules on people" with "not violating existing rules".
They aren't harmful businesses, they provide a useful service to people who would otherwise rot in jail.
They are being attacked because bail has been turned into a "social justice" cause. According to left wing ideology, it's unfair that rich people can get better lawyers, can get better medical treatments, can buy better foods, can buy homes in nicer neighborhoods, can send their kids to better schools, etc. Being able to post bail without paying interest is another thing rich people can do, so according to the left, it is unfair and must be stopped.
In a blog post, the company suggested that such ads constitute a "deceptive or harmful product," citing a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services. "For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years,"
What that means is that Google disenfranchises minorities by denying them access to an essential service, a service that permits people who are too poor to afford bail themselves to get out of jail.
And that's typical of progressivism Google-style: they don't care about minorities, they care about ingratiating themselves to their political cronies, in this case Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom.
Don't sell to EU customers rendering your entire point moot.
I agree with you: I full approve of companies ostracizing and banning EU citizens until the EU changes its neo-imperialist attempts to impose its laws on the rest of the world, and that's what seems to be happening.
I just happen to also condemn Europe's neo-imperialist attempts to impose its rules and regulations where it has no jurisdiction. And in some cases, I urge other countries to deliberately and expressly violate EU regulations, for example when it comes to European limits on free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, you misunderstood; I simply used the word "tell" in the usual sense of "speak to".
Indeed, it doesn't "demand" it, it merely forces other people to subsidize it it and tells people that it is a reasonable choice to live that way.
In the UK:
They are telling you that there ought to be no preference. That's very different from the government simply remaining silent on the question of family structure and child raising.
Correct, Americans have to obey US laws; Americans do not have to obey European laws. Which is what I was saying. And just because the US signed a treaty with the EU does not mean that the treaty is valid under US law; that is, if there is a conflict, then (portions of) the treaty may become invalidated.
We're not talking about companies "wanting to expand business to the EU", we're talking about US companies doing their business in the US and EU customers using them over the Internet. AirBnB renting European apartments to European customers should be subject to EU rules; AirBnB renting US apartments to European tourists should not be subject to EU rules. In the case of AirBnB, the EU can use AirBnB's desire to expand to Europe to strong-arm the company on US soil, but that doesn't apply to companies who don't care about doing business in the EU.
No, the situation is not the same. An ice-cream van needs to be physically close to customers, which is why it falls under the jurisdiction of its customers. But if my ice-cream van stays in Texas and a Mexican mail-orders ice cream cones from me, I don't have to ensure that the transaction complies with Mexican law.
The US generally takes a dim view when one state tries to impose its rules on other states even within the US.
you are sitting in a part of the world where you are probed ... You simply don't see your life being an open book to your government as a problem.
Err. No. That is the exact opposite of what I said. An ad hominem followed by a strawman in one paragraph, you're quite good at this whole not having an argument thing.
I understand the world "totalitarian" just fine. It's what you are,
Ahhh so you have no argument and fall back to ad hominem attacks.
Nowhere did I claim it does.
And I quote: "Being fined into oblivion for being on the web by an entity that you have never had interaction with, should be problematic for everyone."
I claimed (correctly)
And you have provided nothing to back up that claim at all.
I'm done. It's quite clear you don't have a clue how this law works, or other laws in the EU for that matter, and can't even follow your own conversation that you have derailed with nothing by ad hominem attacks ever since I called you out to display a burden of proof.
Have a good day.
Yes, it is the opposite of what you said. That's because you don't realize that you are an open book to your government. The GDPR does not actually protect your data against government spying.
I didn't write that. But even if I did, "being fined by Europe" or having "European rules imposed on us" wouldn't "violate any US rules", but it would still be an infringement on our liberty. Your criterion of saying that "X diminishes American liberties if and only if X conflicts with American rules" itself shows how twisted and totalitarian your thinking is, since it implies that liberties are granted by rules, as opposed to the absence of rules.
I don't have to. We're not having a debate with audience voting. I am informing you that this is my view. I actually think it is patently obvious, given the GDPR itself, as well as recent examples where Europe has tried to squash legal free speech in the US because it conflicted with European censorship. If you're unfamiliar with those examples or don't understand how they amount to what I'm saying, then the problem lies with you. Fortunately, the US has (so far) told the EU to get lost.
And argumentum ad hominem would be "you are wrong because you are a European". Calling you a "totalitarian" isn't an argument at all, it's an observation and a conclusion, just one you happen not to like.
You're thinking like a white coat, not like a hacker. A hacker asks: what can I easily do, and then what useful things can I do with it. What are easy tissues to get? Adipose tissue and blood. Electroporation is easy for introducing stuff. Think about what you can you do with such a system.
I think you're too pessimistic, and it depends on the disease. Cancer is likely too messy and too complex. But for other diseases, cause and effect are pretty clearcut. There really is a long list of diseases where there are pretty obvious treatments using CRISPR that people just need to try out. Of course, a lot of that will probably also happen in places like China and Mexico, where authorities care less.
I suspect there are a lot of researchers with HSV, HPV, HIV, and similar infections, which is what we're talking about here.
There are many people to whom paying a million dollars out of their own pocket isn't such a big deal.
Great, well, that's all I'm saying.
We'll have to disagree on whether that's useful. My reading of the history of science is that there has always been a lot of nonsense when a new technology came out, but that we have also learned a lot from the haphazard experimentation of amateurs and oddballs.
I'm sure lots of things I do are illegal in Europe and North Korea. Why would I care?
The EU is perfectly free to impose fines on me all it wants, and it's perfectly free to block its citizens, and I'm perfectly free to ignore them.
I only worry about the laws of countries whose jurisdiction I'm subject to; why would I worry about anything else?
And in some cases (e.g., European laws restricting free speech), I make it a point of violating them explicitly, and encourage others to do the same thing.
Quite right. And a smart, skilled Ph.D. with experience in gene therapy would be a prime candidate to perform such experimentation on himself, despite regulations that prohibit it.
First of all, "at home" and "big drug company" is a false dichotomy. There are many people with the education and lab facilities to do a reasonable job, they just happen not to have a $1bn and 10 years for clinical trials.
Second, people aren't starting from scratch. Anybody considering at home gene therapy would likely start with something that's already been used successfully for similar diseases/treatments, including an existing delivery system.
Third, your analysis is true for big drug companies that test lots of treatments and are subject to massive liabilities. But what is rational behavior for a big drug company with a financial motive isn't rational for an individual with an incurable illness. A drug company would never run a clinical trial with a drug that has a 33% chance each of being ineffective, lethal, or curative; but many people with serious incurable illnesses would take such a risk and consider it rational.
Well, and whose fault is that? Oh, right, the people who are overregulating drug development to the point where only a tiny group of well-connected drug companies can engage in it.
Besides, it's not even true. You can ship out this kind of testing to labs in China. And many people who are interested in this kind of self-experimentation may well be highly qualified researchers with all the necessary lab facilities; all they lack is the resources and patience to wait for 5-10 years of clinical testing and all the b.s. that entails.
"Require" in what sense? Who are you to decide what risks other people want to take with their own bodies?
And it is their choice to take that risk.
Again, it's their choice to take that risk.
That is not a good argument for restricting people's right to control their own body.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Privacy Shield is. Privacy Shield doesn't extend EU rules to the US, Privacy Shield exempts US companies from EU liability when dealing with European customers in return for following certain practices, and it makes sure that any claims are adjudicated in the US, even for companies that actually have assets in Europe. Privacy Shield isn't the US yielding to EU pressure, it's the EU yielding to US pressure.
Companies who don't opt into Privacy Shield face no liability under US law; they may face liability under EU law, which is unpleasant if they actually want to conduct business in the EU. Anybody else can tell EU courts and EU citizens claiming GDPR protection to go pound sand. Personally, though, I think what companies actually should do is explicitly prohibit anybody falling under GDPR protection from accessing their systems and treat violations as illegal computer access, which is a felony under US law and an extraditable offense.
Yes, that is how the law works.
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,
Of course, if such an agreement exists, US companies still wouldn't be liable under EU law, they would be liable under US law.
Observations of supernovas are physically recorded and those recordings can be reviewed by anyone. Supernovas also happen regularly so they can be recorded and observed repeatedly. In addition, astronomers don't draw conclusions about all supernovas from having observed just a few.
No, it's not enough. Astronomers use the scientific method in their observations, anthropologists do not.
I'm not asking you to; by definition, public schools are function of government.
I am asking you to justify the bold face statement that:
That is, given that public schools have a history of a century of massive inequality, where your any evidence that the government can address that inequality? It hasn't done so in such a long time and with so much money that it is reasonable to conclude at this point that government is incapable of addressing inequality of opportunity in public schools at all.
Of course, even that statement of yours is evading the question, because what we were really discussing is whether public schools can address educational inequality better than private schools. But let's first address your misconceptions about public schools before we get to that question.
Yes, and government school lunches and governmental nutritional guidelines brought us to this point.
Are you kidding? Europe has that even worse than the US: government subsidies of single parenthood, government-financed preschool, and an extremely lopsided gender ratio in pre-, primary and secondary school faculty. And European governments, just like the US government, indoctrinates (tells) people what gender roles and family structures they should adopt.
Oh, you poor thing, you are sitting in a part of the world where you are probed every microsecond of your little, miserable, constrained life, and you are so indoctrinated and ignorant that you don't even recognize it. And this privacy legislation that you so foolishly believe protects you from probing in fact, ensures that your entire life remains an open book to your government. You simply don't see your life being an open book to your government as a problem. Which brings us to the second point...
I understand the world "totalitarian" just fine. It's what you are, because you evidently have no problem with giving total access and control over your life and data to your government, you simply believe that your government isn't going to misuse that data and instead is going to use it to help you. That is the essence of totalitarianism.
Nowhere did I claim it does. I claimed (correctly) that European governments in general have been trying to impose their rules on the rest of the world; the best strategy for that is to try to play regulatory Judo and come up with rules and regulations that don't technically violate anybody else's rules but still achieve your objectives.
It has. Many times. You need to pay more attention to what's happening on European politics and actually understand it, instead of swallowing government propaganda hook line and sinker.
You are so steeped in the European totalitarian mindset that you equate "not imposing rules on people" with "not violating existing rules".
They aren't harmful businesses, they provide a useful service to people who would otherwise rot in jail.
They are being attacked because bail has been turned into a "social justice" cause. According to left wing ideology, it's unfair that rich people can get better lawyers, can get better medical treatments, can buy better foods, can buy homes in nicer neighborhoods, can send their kids to better schools, etc. Being able to post bail without paying interest is another thing rich people can do, so according to the left, it is unfair and must be stopped.
What that means is that Google disenfranchises minorities by denying them access to an essential service, a service that permits people who are too poor to afford bail themselves to get out of jail.
And that's typical of progressivism Google-style: they don't care about minorities, they care about ingratiating themselves to their political cronies, in this case Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom.
Well, that's what we can agree on.
Hopefully, you'll also come around to condemning government experimentation our our kids, like ADHD medication and depriving boys of male role models.
I agree with you: I full approve of companies ostracizing and banning EU citizens until the EU changes its neo-imperialist attempts to impose its laws on the rest of the world, and that's what seems to be happening.
I just happen to also condemn Europe's neo-imperialist attempts to impose its rules and regulations where it has no jurisdiction. And in some cases, I urge other countries to deliberately and expressly violate EU regulations, for example when it comes to European limits on free speech.