Re: A State Level Protection Racket?
> "If Google have a fundamental problem with applying GDPR, then of course they have the right to pull all their services out of the EU and leave a market of 500 million people to their competitors."
Let's say just hypothetically that GDPR isn't as fine a policy as is claimed. If that were the case, then fining Google until it left the EU market could be seen as a form of protectionism. Yes I understand that GDPR is very good indeed, but I bet there have been some criticisms of it, correct? Or is this a case of the science being 'settled,' with no further discussion allowed?
I say these things as a non-expert. I make no claims of deep understanding about GDPR; I merely look at the politics of the situation. People here are pointing out that Google has had plenty of warning about the policy, as if that itself was justification for the policy. Again, it could easily be justified. I just object to the way people here are assuming the policy is so good that there's no need to even discuss it.
Is there a clear, easy to read justification for GDPR I can view, one that doesn't make a bunch of unstated political assumptions? As a Yank I'd be very interested in that.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
