[tluyben2]

As Jacques and me as well have said; that simply means panic and it is not needed. You maybe do not live in the EU but the letter of the law is not such a thing here as it might be in the US (and although punishment is harsher and often far harsher than it is here, US also looks at intent). The EU is not going to punish any company that has the intent to offer its users privacy under this law, but made some mistakes or forgot things. They made this especially vague simply because a) we know they are not going to blanket destroy all violators anyway (we have many crazy vague laws for many decades; no one cares) b) if someone is clearly violating (and I am looking at you, obfuscating user tracking ad companies who, until now, got around pervious regulations by moving servers to other countries and other tricks) they want to be able to enforce, no matter what. This is all very clearly based on user intent, not letter of the law. It might be incredibly hard for litigious country citizens to understand, but we have been living all our lives (and it differs per country as well) with this.

[guelo]

That's the recipe for political enforcement of draconian laws. It's especially dangerous for big foreign american companies which are perfect for politicians to demagogue about. I would not bet the business on any extra-legal grace from their beuracracy.

[olivierduval]

"political enforcement of draconian laws"... like: how the US use their extra-territorial law to fine US Business's competitors (banks, industry...) ? ;-) It's funny to see how the US way of mixing law and business is terrifying when others may use it too, no? Anyway: it hasn't been how Europe worked until now, so relax. French Regulator said, for example, that it won't enforce strictly the regulation ... because... well... EU companies aren't more ready than US ones. And they'll have to.

[Chris_Jay]

The US paving the way for such practices is not exactly reassurance. If the laws are so complex nobody is capable of operating within them, the result is a police state. Being subject to arrest at any time because the law of the land explicitly gives the government that power or because it is so byzantine that nobody can know all of it works out to the same thing in the end.

Your argument seems to be that a police state where the authorities have a lighter touch is preferable. That's obviously true compared to a draconian police state, but it's a police state either way.