Hacker News Reader

Comment by lobsterthief | Hacker News Reader

No, because the EU has no jurisdiction in the US.

Wrong, he doesn't stop being a EU citizen just because he's in the US, EU law still applies.

But you don't have EU rights attached to your person as a citizen. If I go to a place and commit a crime according to the local laws, I'll be charged. Well, similarly, if I go to a place where it says I don't have a certain right, then I don't have that right when I'm in that place.

As a general point: as a foreign citizen you are expected to respect both laws of your country and of the country you reside. As an EU citizen you can't marry twice only because you're spending your vacation in Dubai. And so on. But the GP was about suing in the EU, for their rights affected during their sejour in the US.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. You can get a second marriage in Dubai if you so wish. It just won't be recognized at home. And so on. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a thing but it's very restricted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdictio...

Yes I do. It means exactly that. US persons have US rights no matter where they are. Doesn't mean local laws don't also apply. Same for EU citizens. I have 3 different citizenships, so I have 3 different sets of rights that apply simultaneously and they follow me around everywhere.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It is hard to understand because often those laws are contradictory (the US first and second amendment rights contradict the laws of many countries).

It also doesn’t make sense in relation to how courts work practically; courts enforce your rights by punishing entities that violate them. If the local court doesn’t care about your rights from your other countries, and a local entity violates them, in what sense do you practically have those rights?

Because (in this case) the EU will punish Apple in the EU for taking away your rights, even though you are not in the EU. Your rights still apply.

You very much do have those rights in a practical sense.

It's hard to understand because it's wrong. Again, apart from certain fundamental rights (e.g. right to life) you only "have" are the right that are granted by the local laws. What does it mean to "have" a right? It's means you're able to exercise it. Can you exercise your right to bear arms in Germany? No. Can you exercise your right to free speech in North Korea? No. Etc. You only have these rights when you're in your own country. You may enjoy similar rights in similar countries, but that's about it.

I suppose the question is if you have a "right to bear arms" or a "right to bear arms that shall be unhampered by the government of the USA" - and either way, you don't have a "right to 3rd party app stores" in this case, Apple has an obligation to provide a service to you (an EU citizen), without certain restrictions. That seems a lot more reasonable for applying no matter where you are at the time.

You still have the right to bear arms if you're not in the US, it's just you've also got to obey local laws too.

You're confusing local laws and the rights you attain through citizenship or something else.

You don't have right to guns in Germany if they are contrary to local laws, otherwise you do.

I have rights to consular protection from the EU outside of the EU.

My GDPR rights don't stop because I'm outside the EU.

Tell me which one of these I'm wrong about.

> You're confusing local laws and the rights you attain through citizenship or something else.

I'm not confusing anything.

> You don't have right to guns in Germany if they are contrary to local laws, otherwise you do.

Then how do you reconcile that with your statement that "US persons have US rights no matter where they are"?

> I have rights to consular protection from the EU outside of the EU.

The EU offers no consular protection. Member States do.

> My GDPR rights don't stop because I'm outside the EU.

Yes, they do. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guid...

The EU absolutely offers consular protection.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/consular-protect...

If you go outside the EU, you’ll be interacting with entities that don’t want to do business in the EU, so they won’t care about what rights the EU thinks you have.

In this case, Apple does clearly want to do business in the EU, so the EU might be able to get them to comply worldwide.

You still have to comply with (some) EU laws regarding privacy and customer protection. See GDPR. Even if you don't do business in the EU, you have to comply with GDPR because their citizens live worldwide, and their data is protected everywhere. You will be fined if someone sues you for GDPR violations.

Do you have any examples where this actually happened and the fine was paid?

Yes, here: https://iapp.org/news/a/does-the-recent-fine-for-a-canadian-...

I found a bunch of articles noting that the fine was imposed but I wasn’t able to find any indicating that it was actually collected.

It doesn't work that way. For example, an EU citizen can't go to a Middle Eastern country and demand certain privileges.

When you leave your territory, your jurisdiction changes.

I can't carry assault rifle to my local Aldi's in Amsterdam if I visited the EU even though I have that right as a US citizen...

Get back to me when US law prohibits carrying around alternate app stores on your phone.

Under GDPR, I believe they do (at least in EU courts). It's a law that applies to EU citizens, not just to EU jurisdictions. I do not know if that is the case with the DMA, however.

(Note: not a EU citizen but have had to deal with something related in the past)

The EU has jurisdiction over EU citizens.

... No. It has jurisdiction in the EU. Just like Americans cannot come here and exercise random rights that the US legislator decided to grant that the EU hasn't. Try to carry a gun in public in Germany and see how that works out for you, for example.

They do have jurisdiction in the EU, like you say. Apple exists in the EU.

In the case of GDPR compliance it is trickier because you can easily end up doing business with entities that will never be in the EU, so while the EU might think their laws apply worldwide, the extent to which you “have” EU rights as an EU citizen in any enforceable way is questionable.

Apple wants to do business in the EU, so the EU can write whatever laws they want, including laws that govern Apple’s worldwide behavior.

Article 3(2) is crystal clear. The GDPR applies to activities who target subjects in the union, or controllers and processors established in the union. Apple has an establishment in the EU specifically so that, when it processes the data of subjects outside the EU, it's a different legal entity not established in the EU who is acting. This includes EU citizens who are not in the EU right now. I know it's a long document, but if you have any doubts, read this: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guid... I cannot possibly summarize dozens of pages of regulation in an HN comment, so it'll be beneficial for everyone if we all start with the same knowledge.

Examples 9 and 14 seem pretty odd, the US and the Turkish company don’t have any presence in the EU. They can break the laws of the EU in the sense that I can break the laws of China or Saudi Arabia; I’m not going there so I don’t care what their courts think about me.

I think this is a bad way to write a law, because if no court that I care about is going to enforce it, I can violate it. So, it is misleading to the citizens of the EU to say that they are protected by these laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com