Survivor’s Guilt in the Mountains
newyorker.com1 pointsby ust0 comments
• GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by controllers and processors in the EU, regardless
where it takes place
• Penalties – up to 4% of annual global turnover or 20M€ (whichever is greater)
• Consent – conditions are strengthened (clear and plain language, explicitly related to the
processing, easy to withdraw)
• Breach notification
• Privacy by design
• Right to be forgotten
• Data Protection Officers
• Right to access
Now, as mentioned in another comment, the right to be forgotten and erasure of data is not really wipeout, the data controller and data processor are supposed to do it using "industry standards" and "reasonable effort" (controller, e.g. should flag that the processing the data should be restricted). Also, there are exceptions (legal claims, public authorities, free speech, etc.).
https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-n...
In short, a president has substantial powers (granted by Congress via IEEPA and CFIUS) to institute a ban or force a divestment of any company "engaged in interstate commerce in the United States", if "national emergency" or "national security" is involved. So, legally, it seems that president can ban TikTok, under certain conditions (that may not be so difficult to achieve). The link above only explains the current legal framework, not whether banning the TikTok is in itself a good or a bad thing. IANAL, so I can't judge the competence of the presented arguments, but it is written by a respected law professor.