[gjsman-1000]

Why not? Sends a strong message; and also forces employees to think about what they are doing instead of passing the buck.

This is also not like some stupid patent dispute or DMA compliance argument. These employees are directly responsible for stockpiling personal identities of millions of people for the express purposes of making the surveillance efforts of their government easier. That's a very political action, which is directly aggressive against a country's citizens, and they should feel that.

[doh]

There are 27 countries in EU with different motives, morals, interests, etc. Just because you agree with the decision of one country in one instance it doesn't mean you would agree with them all. But once you give them the powers it's impossible to take them back. It's a bad slippery slope.

[Teever]

Just to be clear here, your issue is with the number of member states in the EU?

In other words you would be fine with Canada arresting employees of Clearview if they tried to enter the country after Canada deemed them profiting members of an organization that was breaking the law in Canada?

[kiratp]

Are you sure you haven't violated the laws of any of the other 190+ countries? sure enough to risk taking another vacation?

[gjsman-1000]

Depends on where I'm going.

If I go to Saudi Arabia after having called for their leader to be executed on X for his treatment of women, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.

If I go to Iran after saying Khamenei deserves a rocket to his mansion, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.

If I go to Europe after having run a multi-million dollar scheme affecting European countries by white-labelling services from North Korea (legal in Brazil), and I'm a Brazilian citizen and know Brazil almost never extradites, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.

If I go to the US with my two 12 year old brides from Niger, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.

[Mordisquitos]

In addition to the examples you mention, if you become involved in doping at an international competition in which US American athletes were competing, it's probably not a good idea to travel there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodchenkov_Anti-Doping_Act_of_...

[Teever]

Is it really so unreasonable to expect that countries prosecute people who commit crimes against their citizens with expectation of impunity the next time they visit their country?

You're proposing an alternative where people can just commit crimes with no recourse from the victims simply because a border exists somewhere and they commit the crimes on one side of the border.

Would you expect it to be reasonable for Canadian citizens to be shooting at Americans on the border and it unreasonable for American authorities to arrest them if they came to America?

[ronsor]

> Would you expect it to be reasonable for Canadian citizens to be shooting at Americans on the border and it unreasonable for American authorities to arrest them if they came to America?

Physical violence is incomparable to working at a company that did something that would be illegal in a certain jurisdiction. Should the person maintaining Clearview's website be arrested in the EU simply because they work there?

[Teever]

What do you suggest as an alternative? That we live in a world where people can evade legal prosecution simply by incorporating or working for a company that incorporated?

Why isn't violent crime comparable to stalking crime? Why is it socially acceptable to hoard personal information about someone and pictures of them as long as someone does it under the auspices of a business but it's creepy and weird to do it as a lone-wolf stalker type? Maybe they're both terrible and creepy business models and the EU is right to prosecute anyone who does it, articles of incorporation or not.

[CalRobert]

I'm not sure, but I don't think "I did it from abroad" should just make it OK. The whole point of the GDPR is that personal data is valuable and important. Would you feel the same if Clearview were instead taking people's money?