[AmericanChopper]

If privacy were important, then protecting citizens from having the government violate it would be important. Protecting citizens from having governments share the findings of their violations with each other would be important.

But instead you have administration that wants to ban encryption and increase surveillance as much as possible. The idea that the EU cares about privacy has no credibility at all.

[rhn_mk1]

Governments are big and composed of competing interests, especially in a multi-party system like the EU. Assigning them a single stance is an oversimplification. (Parts of) the EU can be pro-privacy while being against it too.

[Aunche]

Well it sure is convenient for the EU to favor pro-privacy stances that are conducive to fining American tech companies.

[madia_leva]

We only fine those companies who break the law. Most of them don't break it.

[Aunche]

Yes. Laws made vague enough so they can arbitrary claim something is a "data breach" or "antitrust", despite not being able to quantify the harm of these violations. Meanwhile, they still have yet to fine European automakers a single cent for Dieselgate, which had estimated to kill over a thousand EU residents.

[rhn_mk1]

There's no need to quantify harm for something to be illegal, especially if it's something as difficult to control and evaluate as personal data.

I have a suspicion you're talking from a USA standpoint, where antitrust is enforced based on provable harm. This is not necessarily the set of values that the EU population wants to live by.

The Dieselgate was already deemed illegal, making your remark a case of whataboutism.

[Aunche]

If you're talking about the recent fine, that was on the grounds of antitrust and unrelated to lying about emissions. AFAICT, the EU has yet to fine any automaker for the latter.