Even if that were true, it isn’t but for the sake of the discussion I’ll humour you, America is far more open and aggressive with its protectionism policies. As is China. So I don’t understand the complaint. You’re either in favour of laws that promote the growth of local economies or you’re not.
But to be clear, the GDPR is not about protectionism. If it feels that way then perhaps you need to have a hard look at whether the bigger problem is the companies that you feel are being persecuted by GDPR and whether the countries they originate should have done more to regulate them to begin with.
I'm neutral on protectionism: I'm in favor of laws that are precise and unambiguous, and not up to the interpretation of whatever courts and enforcement agencies wish to impose.
For example, which of the following statements are true according to the ECJ's interpretation?
American companies cannot run datacenters in Europe, because the CLOUD act might compel them to give up data to American authorities.
Canadian companies cannot run datacenters in Europe, because Canada might pass legislation that compels companies to give up data to Canadian authorities.
American citizens cannot work at datacenters in Europe, because they're subject to U.S. law, and the U.S. might pass legislation to compel them to steal data.
Germany cannot host datacenters, because they lack an independent nuclear triad, meaning that they're subject to U.S. invasion to seize the datacenters.
> I'm in favor of laws that are precise and unambiguous, and not up to the interpretation of whatever courts and enforcement agencies wish to impose.
So am I but unfortunately the topic itself is highly nuanced. If it were that easy to say this type of usage is ok but this type isn’t then we would have been able to put better technological measures in place to keep our data safe.
And let’s be honest, GDPR is hardly an outlier. Most laws end up being nuanced when it comes to cutting edge technology. Whether it is intellectual property laws, computer misuse laws, etc. The only difference here is that innocent people aren’t being harmed by GDPR.
So if you’re going to complain about vague laws harming people, then GDPR is the literal last one you should be concerned about at this point in time.
The only reason people moan about GDPR is because entities like Facebook have brainwashed you into believing it’s bad. They say it’s “anti-business”, “harms innocent companies”, etc. but it’s all BS. And I say this as someone who has had to work inside the GDPR every day since it’s inception.
Now if you want to moan about innocent people being arrested in America for “hacking” because they send bug bounties, or even just click “view source” in Chrome…then I’m all ears. Or complain about how IP laws are being abused to hoard monopolies on obvious ideas. Or about how companies are sucking up other peoples copyrighted content for free to train proprietary GAN. Or about the abuses of DMCA.
The thing is, companies don’t to moan about those things because those abuses empower them. Whereas GDPR levels the playing field. So despite the fact that GDPR has never once been abused and the others frequently are, GDPR is the law that everyone gets pissy about.
But to be clear, the GDPR is not about protectionism. If it feels that way then perhaps you need to have a hard look at whether the bigger problem is the companies that you feel are being persecuted by GDPR and whether the countries they originate should have done more to regulate them to begin with.