[joepjp]

Imagine you’re living in a country which allows you to sell drugs freely, then it’s clear that you can sell them in a country where they are banned. I don’t really think this is different regarding privacy. You have to obey to the law where you run your business. It’s up to you wether you change your business or leave the market.

Your argument that it’s weird that you have to “adhere to their laws” is a fallacy. Your decision to leave the market is up to you.

[neya]

While I agree with most of what you said, where my perspective differs is this - The WWW is called the World Wide Web for a reason. A platform to showcase your service globally, without borders.

Suddenly, the EU thinks "Oh, if you have a website that is accessible from the EU, then you need to display X". Sorry, then what was the point of WWW? And more important, why should I update my code? It costs me money and you're not paying me, obviously (you = GOV). Why don't you ask your citizens to stop visiting websites that track them? I showcase my service on a global platform. Don't like it? Don't visit it.

[kuschku]

The EU didn't start this.

I may remind you of the Megaupload case, where a German is under arrest in New Zealand for breaking US law by offering his site to American visitors.

The US has created the precedence for enforcing local law internationally during both the piracy enforcement cases, and the NSA cases.

As result, it is just expected that other countries will use this tool for their own purposes — in this case, the EU is using it even for ghe benefit of the people. Something you can't say about the use the US made of it.

[kbart]

World Wide Web as a borderless, lawless place is only a long gone dream of cyber anarchists of early nineties.