> There's a presumption that every company in the world is violating EU citizens privacy.

That presumption is probably roughly in line with what I've seen in my daily practice over the last decade or so. Some to minor degrees, some in major ways. But overall, very very few companies take the privacy of their customers so serious that they would make choose for their users privacy if ther was a buck to be made, of the top of my head over the last 75 or so companies I looked at two would check that box.

> That storing IP addresses can be construed as illegal.

What's so surprising about that? You see a whole pile of lawsuits that - erroneously - hinge on IP addresses being PII (Copyright lawsuits) and at the same time you expect the law to treat IP addresses as through they are not PII? That simply won't fly. So yes, IP addresses are - in many places - seen as PII.

> That everyone is liable for a fine of $20MM for any mistake, innocent or malevolent.

Bullshit.

> The EU itself is hyping up how fearsome this law is to win approval from their citizens and politicians.

Where have they done so? All I've seen to date is some pretty dispassionate pieces and the text of the law itself.

> As well as to strongly encourage firms to take this change seriously.

Yes, you should take it seriously. Of course you should, it is the law.

> But I am at fault for taking the EU seriously rather than being blase.

No, you're at fault by drawing this out of proportion, just like you are doing in this comment.

> I am fearmongering for trying to explain why businesspeople who are not in the EU are afraid of its actions and are afraid of a brand new law that grants a huge amount of discretion to prosecutors and judges.

Your fearmongering is to exaggerate, to focus on the edge cases rather than on the bulk and then to start assuming that all cases are edge cases. They're not. The bulk of the businesses will be just fine. Those that chose to creatively interpret the law to see how far they can push things will hopefully find out that the EU actually means business.

By your reasoning we never should make new laws to deal with changing conditions. The EU tried a gentle approach aka the cookie law, companies tried hard to work their way around the law rather than to stop tracking users every which way they could so now you get this.

Self regulation -> mild regulation -> strong regulation+

(+ you are here now).

> What I know is that the EU can capriciously change its mind and go after the biggest companies for billions of dollars.

Capriciously? I have not seen the EU act capriciously yet. I've seen them act too slow and too late.

> I know that I don't have the resources to prove my innocence in a foreign country.

Poor you. Well, then better not to commit any crimes. That's a pretty good protection against having to defend yourself, stay well clear of that bright line.

> I don't even have the resources to understand the charges against me, since legal translation is expensive and I could be faced with actions in any or all of the languages of the EU.

More bullshit, the law is written in English and if you want to go so far as to take something to court - which I would highly advise against, it is much easier to comply with the law - you will find that the EU courts are set up to deal in English just fine. Lucky you, as opposed to say someone from Latin America, China or Outer Mongolia who does not speak or write English.

> If I get a package of documents in Estonian or Bulgarian I won't even know that I'm facing charges!

The chances of that happening are nil. Really, could you please stop the fearmongering, it does not serve any purpose.

> Claiming universal jurisdiction against every company in the world with a reverse onus of proof is a dangerous and malevolent tactic.

As opposed to what the US does? See: David Carruthers.

> Because it's your local government that you have confidence in, you're comfortable with it.

Yep.

> I doubt that you would be so blase about a similar approach by the US or Japan.

If the US or Japan has laws that apply to my situation I will take great care to comply with them. One such law (the DMCA) has caused me a lot of work over the years and I see this as a cost of doing business. If you don't want to comply with the law then you are taking your chances. Similar to speeding or deciding to kill someone: it's not what you can get away with that determines what is legal or not and if you are caught breaking the law you can expect trouble. So better don't break the law.