They can also arrest the employees of the company who is breaking their laws the next time they step foot in the EU.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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?"
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]
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.