Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 146,959

  1. …in reply to @JulesPolonetsky
    JulesPolonetsky swodinsky mikarv AnupamChander Ok, I misunderstood, I thought you were saying the lack of such statement is proof that the Schrems 2 precedent was a negative, but you're saying that it is a positive and the EU is just refusing to make statements about what it means clearly enough?


Search tweets' text