Clearview is a perfect example of how to avoid EU-nexus. They don't have any corporate presence, employees, assets, or customers in the EU. They are even careful to only pull photos from US based servers. Because they only do facial matching on photos, they have no idea if someone is or is not an EU citizen.
To seek any sort of judgement or criminal charge against them the EU would need to find an applicable law in the US that covers the activity.
While some people might be upset because GDPR isn't a stick they can use to beat Clearview with, this legal framework is the same that allows you to post material critical of the Chinese government without facing financial penalties or extradition.
Why is the burden of proof on the users? Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on Clearview? They should be required to know that a person is in a place they can legally operate before doing so.
The Netherlands created an intelligence agency called the RIEC deliberately without a human representative so the whole organisation cannot be taken to court. And this organisation actively works against the rights of its citizens with impunity. The attorney general himself even said that their prosecutors can lie in court without being prosecuted for perjury. It’s a joke that this country pretends to be upset with clearview.
Oh, and the prosecutor who lied in court to make his case failed had been previously made lying in court in 2013. Then he didn't loose his job, he was promoted.
And the former head of team interventions, who was joinly responsible for the criminal intervention, was mentioned at the end of each episode of a six part documentary called "De Villamoord" as refusing to answer the documentary maker's questions. The documentary was about 9 innocent people sent to jail on fabricated evidence. So she's being responsible for obstruction of justice before, both of them have. But both of them were just promoted, not fired.
Before being the head of team interventions, she was previously the head of the organised crime unit in Arnheim, which is why her name was mentioned at the end of each episode. And it's why I then further investigated her background to discover those roles and the explanation was to why the case was delayed and how she was then in a position to further obstruct justice. I was interested, because we had had two meetings with her in my efforts to get the absurdly massive harrassment stopped.
It's quite clear that the huge escalation in harrassment that occurred before we started protesting at the town hall that resulted in the government buying the house of my harrasser was an attempt to make me trip up and do something illegal. A futile attempt because I'm simply just not that kind of person, I'm very law abiding.
Almost 30 years ago the Netherlands were caught with their pants down actively participating in criminal activity. The scandal was called "The IRT affaire". At that time the IRT teams were more directly involved with criminal activity as I understand it.
After the big deal that that caused, it looks like they restructured to do the same sort of things but do it all through proxies instead. Plausible deniability. Avoidance of accountability. I expect I'm describing all intelligence agencies here with this, but this was a case of the justice department morphing into an intelligence agency driven thing. So no longer representing justice (or democracy) anymore.
In 2006, the mayor in our council signed the integrated approach to tackeling weed plantages agreement (Convenant, geintegreerde aanpak hennepplantage". The integrated part refers to the proxies (Their partners, like the council) through which they do everything. From that time he was obstructing all attempts from me not to be a victim of harrassment, theft, attacks etc.
Apparently, they are given orders, not explanations, to do things. Plausible deniability. Not very plausible but they would claim the deniability part.
The RIEC isn't just charged with finding evidence to prosecute people. It's also charge with doing "interventions", which are really broadly defined as actions carried out by a group (It's partners, police, council, tax department, mental heath organisation and more) to achieve a certain result. The means by which is left entirely to them.
There are some broad rules, like a cilian cannot be used for obsessive observation for more than a year, without a contract and they are not allowed to commit any crimes. But they harrassed me and my family for more than 10 years (Because I complained and thus in their eyes I deserved it). They don't give a shit about the laws, these are thus just for theater. Every single organisation I approached would not help and not journalist responded. No willingness to print the story.
Sure. Not sure which part you were referring to, but I'll provide both.
Here for example is an article that refers to the fact that the RIEC is not headed by a person (natuurlijke persoon) and hence you can't take it to court:
But it's also helpful to use chatgpt here. Ask it if it is true that the RIEC as organisation cannot be taken to court because it's not headed by a natural person. I've asked that question before and it's answer in the affirmative. Note also, the RIEC has computer systems but asks it's partners, through which it does all it's work, not to put anything into their computers unless it's absolutely necessary for the job. It never is and it cannot be taken to court so it's untouchable.
As to the perjury part, first I'll answer in one way, I filed criminal charges of obstruction of justice against a prosecutor who was the former head of the RIEC who was pretending to prosecute his own asset for stalking merely so that he could make sure that the case did not succeed (because their manner of using this asset was absolutely illegal, they were facilitating illegal activity against people not involved in any criminal activity [collateral damage]). They dismissed the case, I appealed. The appeal went to the attorney general. The attorney general ignored and simply did not comment on any of the evidence and mere responded only to the perjury charge, stating that a prosecutor could not be charged with perjury (meineed), in the sense of artikel bla, bla (The bill for perjury). Suggestioning that the eeds oath (Oath not to lie) that they take when they become a prosecutor is useless.
So here is a link that states that anyone whose job includes a secrecy obligation is exempt from being prosecuted for perjury. They give an "example" of lawyer, but this was just mis-direction at the time, the wording is very broad and in my opinion so broad that it includes everyone in Dutch government.
I have a link to a description and many news articles relating to my battle to get the huge years long harrassment stopped. Including articles as to how I took the police to court and won, also in appeal (5 years later) and found evidence that shows that connection of my harrasser to prosecutor investigations and that the prosecutors office were protecting them.
Note, I never updated that after the failed court case. Mostly because it make's me feel sick reading and confronting all this. 17 years of my life was taken up with it already. 17 years of my life was hijacked by an illegal and immoral and pointless "government intervention". And just because I had the audacity to complain about the harrassment that played out on the driveway I have to cross to get to my home. How dare I?
And I've not been able to hold a single person accountable. None of my official and on-time government complaints were handled. The council simply replied with "no comment" to all of my questions and refused to put this on paper.
The police wouldn't handle my complaint, likewise with the prosecutor's office. If the journalists don't do their jobs and publish articles about injustices, then there is no functional democracy.
The interventions are decided on by a role called "rechercheofficier van justitie" and a role call "hoofd team interventies". When my stalking case went to court, the former head of the RIEC was the prosecutor and the case was delayed, then the former head of team interventies turned up on the board of directors of the court, where influence from behind the scenes could be exerted to make the case fail.
In addition, the assistent to the prosecutor at the time had a role of intervention jurist. Or intervention legal advisor. So the whole lot of them all involved where working together to make sure that case of stalking against their illegal use of a civilian for harrassing someone not involved in criminal activity for more than 10 years would fail. In addition, the papers (The case had a number of news articles associated with it), printed lies from the prosecutor further painting my as an anti-social individual and the judge said in comments to the papers that this case has received enough press attention now. So shutup why don't you.
The civilian that I had filed police reports against for stalking, ending up having his house bought by the government at 200,000 euros loss (Profit to him).
I had more than 600 videos of evidence, the prosecutor could not name a single thing (In a phone call the next day) of anything I had ever done to the harrasser. He refused to submit the evidence and additional, large chunks of evidence "went unexplainably missing" as well.
I researched the hell out of why would a prosecutor deliberately make a case of stalking fail against someone that according to a jurist in the council had consumed more than 1,000,000 euros of money by the authorities over a 10 year period.
To seek any sort of judgement or criminal charge against them the EU would need to find an applicable law in the US that covers the activity.
While some people might be upset because GDPR isn't a stick they can use to beat Clearview with, this legal framework is the same that allows you to post material critical of the Chinese government without facing financial penalties or extradition.