About the Google investigation, part of this is for the same thing that the US investigated and let them of with a promise they'd not do it anymore (in 2012 after 2 years of investigating). The EU doesn't do apologies like that. If the follow up indeed determines that Google abused its market-share in the EU to profit at the expense of other services, then Google will end up paying. And the fine will be more then the profit made due to the abuse. Seriously what is more of a deterrent against future misbehavior by a corporation? The expectation that if it breaks the law some regulatory agency gives the lawyers working there a stern talking to while allowing the corporation to keep the ill-gotten lucre. Or the knowledge that it has to answer to it's shareholders due to not only having to repay the money made by breaking the law but also having to pay a fine on top of that causing a dent in the bottom line?
And then the Facebook thing. Yes people can opt to not use it. However Facebook is providing services in the EU so it has to follow EU law. It can op to not follow EU law by not providing services there. If Facebook keeps insisting on using privacy protections based on US law for people in the EU it will keep running into lawsuits and investigations about it breaking EU law until it changes it's behavior or leaves.
Neither. It is just that in the US the only anti-trust spankings by the EU you get to see are the ones against US companies. Doesn't help that those companies tend to get the really big fines due to the revenue they generate in the EU combined with the habit of trying to play the same games they do with the US regulators only to discover that that tends to increase the fine. But if you look at the total value of the fines separated in EU only businesses and businesses from outside the EU, the amount of EU only fines is still larger then the ones outside ones.
Consquences: The non US parties agreed to a treaty with this little booby trap in it. By not agreeing to change the laws as the treaty demands when the US asks for it a whole raft of punishments can be levied on the country not changing their laws to suit the US. Everything from not implementing the US parts of the treaty to going to the WTO.
But now that the European Commission has accepted the argument that openness is likely to help the acceptance of TTIP, rather than harm it, and aims to release key documents routinely, how long can the US negotiators plausibly maintain their outdated position?
The answer to this question is in perpetuity. The simplest counter is that the US is not the EU and the US would never (*snort*) go against the wishes of it's citizens.
Guess who sponsored the please consider breaking up Google request that the European parliament voted on. A Spanish and a German MEP. The german one has a conflict of interest by working for the law firm that wrote the German Google Tax law.
What is worse is the cluelessness of the MEPs when it comes to search engines. For example demanding unbiased search results. Uh I want the results biased so that I don't have to go through all the pages to be sure that I find what are the most relevant results.
That said I'm waiting for the usual suspects to use this move by Google to cast it in a bad light with regard to the anti-trust probe that has been going on for the last few years (and to which it was found guilty). One of the complainers that got the probe started just happens to be the cartel of German publishers that got that Google Tax going in Germany.
The problem being that aggregators that could take the place of Google are either shutting down as well or looking at ways to move out of Spain while still providing their services. About the only aggregator that might be safe is Twitter because you can barely cram a headline and a link in a tweet. And that is not even a guarantee with how the new law can be read
No he contacted Comcast. He was telling them he was considering to complain about how they are screwing up their accounting to the regulatory body overseeing that. And that is something Comcast can't have with the proposed merger on the horizon.
Didn't know DeGucht classified the comments as an attack. It is however something that is not unexpected. Democracy in the EU is all good and well as long as the proles vote/react as the top layers of the EU want. The moment that we uppity peasants decide to think for ourselves and vote/react against what they want the worst that happens is a delay to let people forget what they voted/reacted against and then get the wanted result in a way that doesn't involve the masses. You don't even want to imagine the pressure brought to bear in the event that a government actually sides with their population instead of helping out the EU bureaucracy getting what it wants.
Ah yes the anecdote as evidence fallacy. Was the intersection considered dangerous before the cameras were installed (another of the points I raised)? Or was it put up as a revenue generator? How long was the original yellow light period, was it short already? Are the cameras clearly announced to drivers?
So yes you reacted as a bull to a red rag on the fact that I defended the placement of the cameras in some situations and didn't bother to read what I wrote. Might want to follow the studies in the factsheet link I posted to another comment.
I don't miss the facts. I got hammered by a guy who didn't bother to read what I wrote. TruthHurts dismissed my claim (and tossed in an ad hominem to boot, cool aid drinker -> no need to actually read what is written) by making a counter argument I specifically went on to exclude in my original post.
Actually you are the one doing the cool aid by reflexively dismissing what I wrote by without bothering what I'd wrote. I specifically stated that this was excluding [too] short yellow periods, which is what you attacked me on.
So next time actually bother to read before putting up post reflexively dismissing anything that doesn't fit your blinders up view of the world.
It will never be implemented since it would remove the 'for profit'-part from the equation. The annoying thing is that it has been shown that red light cameras on dangerous intersection makes those safer (not taking into account external factors such as yellow light periods that are [too] short).