3 ms·

“Privacy Shield” proposed to replace US-EU Safe Harbor, faces skepticism

20 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

mark_l_watson 11y ago
Does anyone know how EU privacy laws will play out against TPIP? My understanding is that TPIP (and TPP for the pacific area) allow corporations to sue governments in tribunal courts that pass laws that negatively impact corporations' profits.
- mercurial 11y ago
  As far as I know, Big Corp can't sue governments retroactively. Good luck passing new laws, though.
- matt4077 11y ago
  That's obviously a grotesque simplification. The investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms are supposed to protect against legislation that amounts to expropriation, or that unfairly targets only foreign companies. It specifically names environmental protection, consumer welfare and other legitimate aims of new legislation. There's a lot to criticise with these mechanisms without resorting to misrepresentation.
  - wfo 11y ago
    The funny thing about law is it doesn't matter how it's meant to be used once it becomes law; power is power. I'm sure when the trade agreements that allow tobacco companies to determine Australia's cigarette laws were signed there were plenty of people saying "oh, no, these laws are only meant for good things. We'll only use them when a country specifically targets a specific foreign company. They are for consumer welfare. We promise." And then this happens: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-australia/ https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-s... Just like when the PATRIOT ACT in the US was passed it was only going to be used for terrorism (Promise! There are legitimate aims!), not for drugs like it is the vast majority of the time today. I think in this case it's not a "grotesque simplification" it's just stating the facts without running a free PR campaign on behalf of large multinationals.
    - matt4077 11y ago
      Yes, big Tobacco is suing Australia. And I'll be first on the barricades if they win. Until then, it's just a lawsuit with dubious prospects. In fact, that's the main problem I have with the ISDS doomsday scenario: these mechanisms have been part of trade agreements for what, the last 40 years? Yet there isn't a single example for any of these outrageous results people are predicting. I've honestly looked into it with what I believe is an open mind and I couldn't find any. (Nonetheless, I welcome the changes to CETA just announced today: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-399_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-399_en.htm)
    - Esau 11y ago
      "The funny thing about law is it doesn't matter how it's meant to be used once it becomes law; power is power." So true. Just look at how US prosecutors act.
mercurial 11y ago
It's really farcical. Nobody with the tiniest bit of common sense would take seriously any promise of privacy from a foreign government, especially the one which established the most far-ranging data collection ever. Not that you should be naive enough to think that the various EU intelligence apparatuses don't do exactly the same thing but with less money.

20 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

Does anyone know how EU privacy laws will play out against TPIP? My understanding is that TPIP (and TPP for the pacific area) allow corporations to sue governments in tribunal courts that pass laws that negatively impact corporations' profits.

mercurial 11y ago
As far as I know, Big Corp can't sue governments retroactively. Good luck passing new laws, though.
matt4077 11y ago
That's obviously a grotesque simplification. The investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms are supposed to protect against legislation that amounts to expropriation, or that unfairly targets only foreign companies. It specifically names environmental protection, consumer welfare and other legitimate aims of new legislation. There's a lot to criticise with these mechanisms without resorting to misrepresentation.
- wfo 11y ago
  The funny thing about law is it doesn't matter how it's meant to be used once it becomes law; power is power. I'm sure when the trade agreements that allow tobacco companies to determine Australia's cigarette laws were signed there were plenty of people saying "oh, no, these laws are only meant for good things. We'll only use them when a country specifically targets a specific foreign company. They are for consumer welfare. We promise." And then this happens: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-australia/ https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-s... Just like when the PATRIOT ACT in the US was passed it was only going to be used for terrorism (Promise! There are legitimate aims!), not for drugs like it is the vast majority of the time today. I think in this case it's not a "grotesque simplification" it's just stating the facts without running a free PR campaign on behalf of large multinationals.
  - matt4077 11y ago
    Yes, big Tobacco is suing Australia. And I'll be first on the barricades if they win. Until then, it's just a lawsuit with dubious prospects. In fact, that's the main problem I have with the ISDS doomsday scenario: these mechanisms have been part of trade agreements for what, the last 40 years? Yet there isn't a single example for any of these outrageous results people are predicting. I've honestly looked into it with what I believe is an open mind and I couldn't find any. (Nonetheless, I welcome the changes to CETA just announced today: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-399_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-399_en.htm)
  - Esau 11y ago
    "The funny thing about law is it doesn't matter how it's meant to be used once it becomes law; power is power." So true. Just look at how US prosecutors act.

mercurial 11y ago

It's really farcical. Nobody with the tiniest bit of common sense would take seriously any promise of privacy from a foreign government, especially the one which established the most far-ranging data collection ever. Not that you should be naive enough to think that the various EU intelligence apparatuses don't do exactly the same thing but with less money.