Miss you all too, hope to reunite soon
Hey Karen!! How nice to hear from you!
This looks like a very timely synthesis and analysis of several ongoing key case-law in relation to surveillance-based advertising. x.com/lexzard/stat...
Comparative lawyers, esp. data protection & China newbies, should read this. We're not in Kansas now...
In conclusion, PIPL has a GDPR-like face but also a neoliberal heart. The resemblance to the GDPR is thus elusive and distracting insofar as it does not lead to harmonisation/interoperability, hence casting doubts on the existence of the Brussels Effect in China. 10/n
enforcement priorities, thus making a case of 'asteroid capture'. Note that this is not a capture by GDPR-informed global standards, but China's own cyber-sovereignty ideology that is inherently at odds with European values in relation to data protection. 9/n
without looking at the details of enforcement. In the last part, prelim observations on future trajectories of PIPL are made based on its instrumental characteristics. We argue that the PIPL is so distinct from the GDPR in terms of institutional design, legal infra, and... 8/n
PIPL's alignment can be understood as a process of strategic acceleration i.e. China recognising the structural & instrumental importance of privacy legislation but intentionally leaving significant semantic gaps, rendering it almost impossible to gauge the real effects... 7/n
A further PIPL-GDPR textual comparison shows that the similarities are elusive, and claimed differences more contested than meets the eye. Despite being the most powerful form of gravity assist, the GDPR is still incapable of dictating China’s trajectory of DP development. 6/n