[CalRobert]

You're getting downvoted, but it's an interesting idea. Violating the GDPR is illegal.

You can break your home country's laws when you go abroad and it's usually OK. You can smoke cannabis when you visit the Netherlands* from Ireland, for instance, and go back home to Ireland without worry.

Violating GDPR is illegal. It's acceptable to arrest people who do things that are against the law. And if, say, I write a lambda that runs hourly and violates the GDPR from my home in California, and then take a holiday to the Netherlands while the lambda is still running, should I be immune from arrest? The offense is still ongoing in that instance.

If we truly take privacy seriously then this should be treated like a crime. If I had something that scammed people in Europe and then holidayed in Europe I'd expect to risk arrest. Or is that somehow less important than violating people's privacy?

* (It's actually technically still illegal but that's a different story). Gedoofd is weird.

[yadaeno]

Arresting tourists for crimes they did not commit is hostage taking and could be considered an act of war.

The US is willing to prison swap terrorists with Russia, we definitely wouldn’t tolerate some EU country (that we spend billions of dollars defending) arbitrarily arresting tourists so they can hold a foreign company hostage.

[CalRobert]

What do you mean "did not commit"?

Anyway I think you're right that the US would strongarm EU governments in to getting their way (look at privacy shield, etc.) but I still think "you're allowed to continue breaking our laws that affect people in our country while you visit us because it happens to be running on a computer you left at home" is a weak defence.

[yadaeno]

We’re talking about xx million dollar dispute between allied countries, it’s not a reasonable method of conflict resolution to start throwing people in cages that work for x company until the EU gets their way.

> what do you mean “did not commit”

It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.

Edit: if we’re talking about an individual US citizen that’s found guilty in the EU, then the EU will go through the extradition process to have them arrested.

[Teever]

This isn't a dispute between the two countries, it's a dispute between the law enforcement of one country, and the people they're accusing of breaking the law from another country.

> It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.

Is it really so simple? Is all that the cartels missing to avoid persecution from the US gov't simply incorporating in their home state? Of course not.

Imagine that offered death by drones. You tell 'em who you want killed and they mail a package containing a drone that pops out and kills the person when it's delivered. Would it be reasonable to say "Yeah we can't arrest anyone from that company when they come to our country because they incorporated in another jurisdiction?"

[yadaeno]

If the EU wants to arrest someone they can submit an extradition request which the US will approve or deny after reviewing. The EU can also already arrest individuals whom are found to be criminals.

You are suggesting a totally new weapon for EU law enforcement which is to imprison individuals who are not found guilty of a crime because they work for a company that owes the EU money. That sounds a bit insane to me, I think if the EU wants to collect their fine they should find a more diplomatic approach that does not equate to a literal war crime [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage

[Teever]

The flaw in your line of thinking is that it is legal and very common place to arrest people who are suspected of committing a crime.

We're talking about people who have suspected of committing a crime in the EU. Should they step foot in the EU the EU is free to arrest suspects of a crime and they can get their day in court.