21 ms·

EU is one of my best hopes when it comes to privacy and really wish they start going after tech behemoths. I have given up on US authorities doing anything to r

EU is one of my best hopes when it comes to privacy and really wish they start going after tech behemoths. I have given up on US authorities doing anything to reign them in. And policies in other significant countries (eg. China) would be even worse for user privacy.

endisukaj 9y ago
Not much they can do against tech behemoths based in the US though. They can stop them from gathering EU citizen data, or at least approve laws that try to stop them but who knows what is really happening behind the scenes.
- RestlessMind 9y ago
  I believe if EU's laws are widely publicized and proved to be useful in EU countries, then there can be enough political pressure in the US. A tangential, but political relevant point: tech companies are in a particularly bad spot in the US because they are hated by both sides; republicans hate them because they are perceived as having liberal bias while democrats hate them because of tax avoidance, worsening inequality, job losses due to automation etc. So a political action against them would be easier to pull off compared to some other sectors like energy or finance.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I believe if EU's laws are widely publicized and proved to be useful in EU countries, then there can be enough political pressure in the US. Worked for universal healthcare, right?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - RestlessMind 9y ago
      If universal healthcare had not worked in other countries, US wouldn't even have received Obamacare. The fact that other OECD countries have good healthcare systems means you have a significant chunk of population who clamors for a better system here and who stops politicians from gutting what we already have. I say wait for 10-15 more years and we will get universal healthcare in the US.
  - bearcobra 9y ago
    I get the feeling that the perception of tech companies as being evil/hated is overblown. Link to a tweet with one survey that supports my claim. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/942468649390100481 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/942468649390100481
    - addicted 9y ago
      I agree. I think the distaste is more concentrated among tech circles itself. Whether this is jealousy, or its because people in Tech understand better the power, control and knowledge these companies have than the regular joe is something that isn’t clear to me.
- theptip 9y ago
  As the article says, under GDPR (coming in mid-2018) they will be able to fine 4% of global revenue, or 20m EUR, whichever is larger [1]. I'm not certain that this particular case is covered by the GDPR, but if it is, then that will compel action. If Facebook declines to pay these fines, then presumably their execs would be arrested if they ever travelled anywhere in the EU. While FB can claim that it “is only subject to the legislation of [the US].”, that is obviously not the case, and once the EU regulators gain their teeth, I'm sure we'll see FB change their tune. [1]: https://www.eugdpr.org/key-changes.html https://www.eugdpr.org/key-changes.html
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Or you'll see FB/others decide the EU isn't worth it over time. It's interesting how many people here believe that there is no other possibility other than "we get what we want to happen". Your faith is, IMHO, misplaced. There are many cases in history where other companies decided it wasn't worth the cost of doing business in certain countries. Or they just successfully coopted the governments!
    - qubex 9y ago
      Are you mad? Miss out on a market of 740+ million of the world's richest consumers, twice the size of the US, the bulk of the western world and most of the developed economies on the planet?? No, that's absolutely not going to happen. Additionally, they'd never risk withdrawing from a market and letting a local competitor develop, take hold, expand, and attack them on home turf. Look at social networks and search engines in China. EDIT: I see you are fairly highly placed in Google. I'm quite surprised if you genuinely think what you wrote, given the raw numbers you must surely know, but given your legal training, I am not at all surprised that you would posture as if you were unaware of this.
      - DannyBee 9y ago
        "EDIT: I see you are fairly highly placed in Google. I'm quite surprised if you genuinely think what you wrote, given the raw numbers you must surely know, but given your legal training, I am not at all surprised that you would posture as if you were unaware of this." Character assassination, awesome! Please leave the company i work for this out of this, always. I never speak for my company on hacker news unless i say otherwise. I've been very clear and consistent about that. Thanks! However, given the personal attack, i'm done. This kind of stupid bullshit is one reason i've stopped contributing as much lately. It's nice for you to present your opinion as if it was the only true possibility and everyone else is an idiot. It's not, however, a great way to foster a discussion. Tacking on a personal attack makes it even more welcoming.
kabes 9y ago
A lot of privacy protection has been thrown overboard in the name of the fight against terrorism here in the EU.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  We've given all that up in the USA with the Patriot Act, though it sounds like the NSA stopped collecting everything in the last couple of years, it's trivial to get a court order to enable it for any individual. The pretension of the FISA court is transparent. https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191226106/fisa-court-appears-to-be-rubberstamp-for-government-requests https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191226106/fisa-court-appears-...
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    French security laws make the PATRIOT Act look like a toy.
gradys 9y ago
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I agree, the EU legislates privacy to a degree that no other political entity does as far as I'm aware, but on the other hand, they often do so with poorly designed policies. As an example, I'd point to the cookie notices that appear on almost every major website, which must have absorbed, globally, many careers worth of man-hours to implement while offering virtually no real-world privacy benefits. Maybe I'm over-indexing on one bad example? I'd love to hear more informed opinions about this.
- a_imho 9y ago
  I don't even understand how a cookie notice is equivalent to consent [1]. Anyone who consumed the content in this message agrees to pay this user 1 BTC [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#EU_cookie_directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#EU_cookie_directiv...
  - kilburn 9y ago
    In websites using this technique, consent is not assumed until you keep browsing the website. Hence, the notice cannot be in past tense like yours :P
  - tzahola 9y ago
    Shit, you got me! Post your BTC address please... :(
  - rbehrends 9y ago
    It isn't. If you look at the EU's information about it [1], you must be able to refuse processing of information that's not necessary for the functioning of the site. Virtually no site outside the EU's own ones does that. Ironically, there are some that have them even though the only cookies they use are ones that are necessary for the functioning of the site, and so are exempt. Note that this isn't just about cookies. It's pretty much any information being sent from the user's computer or stored on the user's computer: "Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller." As far as I can tell, this is mostly because member states capitulated before online advertising exchanges (it's a directive, not a regulation, so it is implemented by member states) and allowed them to work around the clear intent of the directive. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm
Jdam 9y ago
This is just protectionism at its finest. You better don’t think that would happen if FB was a french company. The industrial-governmental-complex is stronger in France than anywhere else in the western world.
- geofft 9y ago
  That seems reasonable - as long as the US maintains its protectionist stance of not letting people born in France compete for jobs on a level playing field with people born in the US, why should France allow employers in the US to compete on a level playing field with employers in France? (Are you counting protectionist immigration laws as part of countries' industrial-governmental complexes?)
  - jyrkesh 9y ago
    I could be reading it wrong, but your post came across as overly combative and an appeal to whataboutism. I'd say both are protectionist and both are wrong. My interpretation of your parent was simply that it is protectionist of France to be doing this (and I'd argue that makes it as wrong as the American protectionism that you brought up).
  - i_am_nomad 9y ago
    I would argue that immigration laws are not strictly economic or commercial policies. You’re drawing a false equivalence.
  - jlavine 9y ago
    But that goes both ways: It's no easier for an American to move to and work in France than for a Frenchman to do so in the US. There are plenty of Americans who would love to make the move - to gain quality of life at the expense of a big chunk of their salary - if it weren't for immigration restrictions. A fairer comparison would ask whether the US government has taken any actions against European companies operating in the US similar to those enacted or threatened by Europe against Microsoft, Google, Facebook.
    - 9y ago
nickik 9y ago
The reality is that while the EU does not like US tech companies to have user data (of Europeans), they themselves are quite happy to get and exchange that data with US and other agencies, including most importantly secret services. The exact data they don't want Whatsapp to share with Facebook is very likely in the exchanges between secret services. I could go into a long list about the privacy restricting laws passed all over Europe, specially Britain and France. Germany is somewhat better but they are essentially fighting a flood and most politician think its far easier to go with the flow and significant measures have been adopted even there. I am far more afraid of being arrested because I violated some EU regulation about 'hacking tools'(yes, those are iligal in Germany, whatever it means), 'drugs' or any of many other freedom restricting or plain nonsensical polices in the EU. If I can pick who can have all my data I would pick google, facebook and so an before I would ever, ever pick the EU (or most states). Mostly because google and facebook have little interest or care about my political views, my consumption habits or who I am sleeping with and who I associate with, unless it is to offer me deals to get these things easier. While I know for sure that I am indexed on many list from the government about a potential problem because I was at Snowden and other political lectures and events that explained what happened when the state became angry at you. There are no lecture by people who hide out in Russia unable to see their family becase of google evil data collection. The EU on the other hand seem very interested in pretty much every single aspect on my live and and am actively in violation to lots of these 'laws' already, indeed most people are. Not to mention that they have a continent wide security service, special forces, many spy agencies and large armies. A further point relates to the problem that once states gain such control of how any company deals with data it is not gone be long before all companies are legally required to give standard access to all this data (a view already expressed by many, many politicians, police union chiefs and burocrates on al level all over Europe). So I'm sorry I can't join your positivism about good guy Europe finally going after evil US cooperation (who have given me free services for pretty much my whole live, not to mention lots of Open Source code that I literally use every day).
- avar 9y ago
  The EU does not run a secret service or regulate the secret services of its member countries. You seem to be conflating EU trade policies and consumer protection, which is what's being discussed here, with the lack of consistency between whatever the EU is doing and what some European member countries are doing.
Fnoord 9y ago
The US could be very well in on it. What if US companies could use the NSA data for business benefits? And that happened. The EU needs to stop seeing the US as its ally, and protect itself adequately. GDPR is one step in the right direction.
jamiequint 9y ago
Isn't your best choice when it comes to privacy to choose which services to use and which ones not to use, rather than relying on your government dictate rules they don't fully understand to companies which may put their entire business at risk? In other words, in terms of things you care about absolute data privacy may be #1 on your list, others may be willing to accept less privacy for an internet that can continue to exist on an ad supported business model. Why should you have your way (enforced by the government) and others not get their way. We already have strong disclosure laws in both the US and Europe about data use, and at the end of the day it's your choice.
- laurentoget 9y ago
  As an individual who is concerned about their own privacy facing corporations with terabites of information, how can you hope finding out what happened to your data without gaining leverage through the government?
  - jamiequint 9y ago
    Read the Privacy Policy where in the US and EU companies are required by law to say how they're using your data.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      So, relying on governments to dictate rules to protect us, in other words.
      - jamiequint 9y ago
        Disclosure laws impose minimum negative effects on the end-businesses that are required to provide them, while being simultaneously beneficial for consumers. I think they are a good balance and end up being a net positive for society. A strictly libertarian viewpoint would say that no disclosure should be required and you should just choose to avoid any service that doesn't provide full disclosure. After all, it's their right to not provide that information to you and it's your right to not use that service as a result.
codedokode 9y ago
That is how free market works: everyone is free to collect and trade personal data.
Steeeve 9y ago
Legislative solutions are always bad. What is needed is simply competition and for people who care about the things you care about to have influence among end user communities.
holografix 9y ago
More and more the US resembles the wild west where only the fittest survive and how fit you are depends heavily on the success of your parents and the financial circumstances you were born into. I liken it to capitalism 2.0 or a new form of corrupted monarchy where the 1% of royalty will protect their castles by slowly diminishing the power of the population’s representative government. In China there seems to be at least some anxiety amongst the wealthy that the Comunist party’s eye of Sauron might gaze upon you and your life tossed into the flaming lava as it’s harder for a system without elections to be corrupted by lobbyists. In the US the big money interests are supremely defiant. Europe still scarred by the wars seems to understand the need for opportunity and decency on a much deeper level.
brisance 9y ago
Seems a German minister is not entirely on board with privacy. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/germany-preparing-law-for-backdoors-in-any-type-of-modern-device/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/germany-pre...
- darklajid 9y ago
  He is a nutjob, always has been. And part of the stupidity seems to come with his job: Everyone sitting in that chair seems to believe that crime has to be reduced before all. He asking for random access to every device is like the minister of agriculture asking for stable and higher milk prices. Expected. He's unfortunately not just sputtering what he wants, he also wants stupid and dangerous things and likes to play the "think of the children" (his predecessor really liked that one), "fight the terrorism" cards. Every country has loonies.
  - gmueckl 9y ago
    The surprising part here is that every minister in that position started to spout the exact same nonsense, regardless of his party association. I really wonder how that is even possible. I wish we would get a true liberal in that position soon, but our liberals are more concerned with deregulating companies than with citizen's rights.
sandov 9y ago
I value freedom more than privacy. I choose what to share and what to not share.
latexr 9y ago
And yet, we (EU) have lost Net Neutrality before the US. It was shoehorned into the bill that ends roaming charges[1]. I’d be remiss not to mention it saddens me that every time the US has faced internet-related difficulties (SOPA, PIPA, this latest FCC decision), I’ve seen multiple Europeans making noise in support, yet I haven’t observed the reverse to be true at all. In our own fight for Net Neutrality or against the VAT reform that hurts mostly small business, what I saw from the US was crickets. I agree with you that the EU is better than the US on these types of issues, but with every threat it faces, I see less results. [1]: Which I appreciate and have taken good advantage of already, but would gladly give up for Net Neutrality.
Feniks 9y ago
Yeah lobbyists haven't entirely cracked EU parliament yet. Its made up of people from 27 countries from god knows how many different parties. Difficult to bribe efficiently. The US is a lot easier, a two party system is heaven for corruption.

endisukaj 9y ago

Not much they can do against tech behemoths based in the US though. They can stop them from gathering EU citizen data, or at least approve laws that try to stop them but who knows what is really happening behind the scenes.

RestlessMind 9y ago
I believe if EU's laws are widely publicized and proved to be useful in EU countries, then there can be enough political pressure in the US. A tangential, but political relevant point: tech companies are in a particularly bad spot in the US because they are hated by both sides; republicans hate them because they are perceived as having liberal bias while democrats hate them because of tax avoidance, worsening inequality, job losses due to automation etc. So a political action against them would be easier to pull off compared to some other sectors like energy or finance.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I believe if EU's laws are widely publicized and proved to be useful in EU countries, then there can be enough political pressure in the US. Worked for universal healthcare, right?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - RestlessMind 9y ago
    If universal healthcare had not worked in other countries, US wouldn't even have received Obamacare. The fact that other OECD countries have good healthcare systems means you have a significant chunk of population who clamors for a better system here and who stops politicians from gutting what we already have. I say wait for 10-15 more years and we will get universal healthcare in the US.
- bearcobra 9y ago
  I get the feeling that the perception of tech companies as being evil/hated is overblown. Link to a tweet with one survey that supports my claim. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/942468649390100481 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/942468649390100481
  - addicted 9y ago
    I agree. I think the distaste is more concentrated among tech circles itself. Whether this is jealousy, or its because people in Tech understand better the power, control and knowledge these companies have than the regular joe is something that isn’t clear to me.
theptip 9y ago
As the article says, under GDPR (coming in mid-2018) they will be able to fine 4% of global revenue, or 20m EUR, whichever is larger [1]. I'm not certain that this particular case is covered by the GDPR, but if it is, then that will compel action. If Facebook declines to pay these fines, then presumably their execs would be arrested if they ever travelled anywhere in the EU. While FB can claim that it “is only subject to the legislation of [the US].”, that is obviously not the case, and once the EU regulators gain their teeth, I'm sure we'll see FB change their tune. [1]: https://www.eugdpr.org/key-changes.html https://www.eugdpr.org/key-changes.html
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Or you'll see FB/others decide the EU isn't worth it over time. It's interesting how many people here believe that there is no other possibility other than "we get what we want to happen". Your faith is, IMHO, misplaced. There are many cases in history where other companies decided it wasn't worth the cost of doing business in certain countries. Or they just successfully coopted the governments!
  - qubex 9y ago
    Are you mad? Miss out on a market of 740+ million of the world's richest consumers, twice the size of the US, the bulk of the western world and most of the developed economies on the planet?? No, that's absolutely not going to happen. Additionally, they'd never risk withdrawing from a market and letting a local competitor develop, take hold, expand, and attack them on home turf. Look at social networks and search engines in China. EDIT: I see you are fairly highly placed in Google. I'm quite surprised if you genuinely think what you wrote, given the raw numbers you must surely know, but given your legal training, I am not at all surprised that you would posture as if you were unaware of this.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      "EDIT: I see you are fairly highly placed in Google. I'm quite surprised if you genuinely think what you wrote, given the raw numbers you must surely know, but given your legal training, I am not at all surprised that you would posture as if you were unaware of this." Character assassination, awesome! Please leave the company i work for this out of this, always. I never speak for my company on hacker news unless i say otherwise. I've been very clear and consistent about that. Thanks! However, given the personal attack, i'm done. This kind of stupid bullshit is one reason i've stopped contributing as much lately. It's nice for you to present your opinion as if it was the only true possibility and everyone else is an idiot. It's not, however, a great way to foster a discussion. Tacking on a personal attack makes it even more welcoming.

kabes 9y ago

A lot of privacy protection has been thrown overboard in the name of the fight against terrorism here in the EU.

stevenwoo 9y ago
We've given all that up in the USA with the Patriot Act, though it sounds like the NSA stopped collecting everything in the last couple of years, it's trivial to get a court order to enable it for any individual. The pretension of the FISA court is transparent. https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191226106/fisa-court-appears-to-be-rubberstamp-for-government-requests https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191226106/fisa-court-appears-...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  French security laws make the PATRIOT Act look like a toy.

gradys 9y ago

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I agree, the EU legislates privacy to a degree that no other political entity does as far as I'm aware, but on the other hand, they often do so with poorly designed policies. As an example, I'd point to the cookie notices that appear on almost every major website, which must have absorbed, globally, many careers worth of man-hours to implement while offering virtually no real-world privacy benefits. Maybe I'm over-indexing on one bad example? I'd love to hear more informed opinions about this.

a_imho 9y ago
I don't even understand how a cookie notice is equivalent to consent [1]. Anyone who consumed the content in this message agrees to pay this user 1 BTC [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#EU_cookie_directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#EU_cookie_directiv...
- kilburn 9y ago
  In websites using this technique, consent is not assumed until you keep browsing the website. Hence, the notice cannot be in past tense like yours :P
- tzahola 9y ago
  Shit, you got me! Post your BTC address please... :(
- rbehrends 9y ago
  It isn't. If you look at the EU's information about it [1], you must be able to refuse processing of information that's not necessary for the functioning of the site. Virtually no site outside the EU's own ones does that. Ironically, there are some that have them even though the only cookies they use are ones that are necessary for the functioning of the site, and so are exempt. Note that this isn't just about cookies. It's pretty much any information being sent from the user's computer or stored on the user's computer: "Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller." As far as I can tell, this is mostly because member states capitulated before online advertising exchanges (it's a directive, not a regulation, so it is implemented by member states) and allowed them to work around the clear intent of the directive. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm

Jdam 9y ago

This is just protectionism at its finest. You better don’t think that would happen if FB was a french company. The industrial-governmental-complex is stronger in France than anywhere else in the western world.

geofft 9y ago
That seems reasonable - as long as the US maintains its protectionist stance of not letting people born in France compete for jobs on a level playing field with people born in the US, why should France allow employers in the US to compete on a level playing field with employers in France? (Are you counting protectionist immigration laws as part of countries' industrial-governmental complexes?)
- jyrkesh 9y ago
  I could be reading it wrong, but your post came across as overly combative and an appeal to whataboutism. I'd say both are protectionist and both are wrong. My interpretation of your parent was simply that it is protectionist of France to be doing this (and I'd argue that makes it as wrong as the American protectionism that you brought up).
- i_am_nomad 9y ago
  I would argue that immigration laws are not strictly economic or commercial policies. You’re drawing a false equivalence.
- jlavine 9y ago
  But that goes both ways: It's no easier for an American to move to and work in France than for a Frenchman to do so in the US. There are plenty of Americans who would love to make the move - to gain quality of life at the expense of a big chunk of their salary - if it weren't for immigration restrictions. A fairer comparison would ask whether the US government has taken any actions against European companies operating in the US similar to those enacted or threatened by Europe against Microsoft, Google, Facebook.
  - 9y ago

nickik 9y ago

The reality is that while the EU does not like US tech companies to have user data (of Europeans), they themselves are quite happy to get and exchange that data with US and other agencies, including most importantly secret services. The exact data they don't want Whatsapp to share with Facebook is very likely in the exchanges between secret services. I could go into a long list about the privacy restricting laws passed all over Europe, specially Britain and France. Germany is somewhat better but they are essentially fighting a flood and most politician think its far easier to go with the flow and significant measures have been adopted even there. I am far more afraid of being arrested because I violated some EU regulation about 'hacking tools'(yes, those are iligal in Germany, whatever it means), 'drugs' or any of many other freedom restricting or plain nonsensical polices in the EU. If I can pick who can have all my data I would pick google, facebook and so an before I would ever, ever pick the EU (or most states). Mostly because google and facebook have little interest or care about my political views, my consumption habits or who I am sleeping with and who I associate with, unless it is to offer me deals to get these things easier. While I know for sure that I am indexed on many list from the government about a potential problem because I was at Snowden and other political lectures and events that explained what happened when the state became angry at you. There are no lecture by people who hide out in Russia unable to see their family becase of google evil data collection. The EU on the other hand seem very interested in pretty much every single aspect on my live and and am actively in violation to lots of these 'laws' already, indeed most people are. Not to mention that they have a continent wide security service, special forces, many spy agencies and large armies. A further point relates to the problem that once states gain such control of how any company deals with data it is not gone be long before all companies are legally required to give standard access to all this data (a view already expressed by many, many politicians, police union chiefs and burocrates on al level all over Europe). So I'm sorry I can't join your positivism about good guy Europe finally going after evil US cooperation (who have given me free services for pretty much my whole live, not to mention lots of Open Source code that I literally use every day).

avar 9y ago
The EU does not run a secret service or regulate the secret services of its member countries. You seem to be conflating EU trade policies and consumer protection, which is what's being discussed here, with the lack of consistency between whatever the EU is doing and what some European member countries are doing.

Fnoord 9y ago

The US could be very well in on it. What if US companies could use the NSA data for business benefits? And that happened. The EU needs to stop seeing the US as its ally, and protect itself adequately. GDPR is one step in the right direction.

jamiequint 9y ago

Isn't your best choice when it comes to privacy to choose which services to use and which ones not to use, rather than relying on your government dictate rules they don't fully understand to companies which may put their entire business at risk? In other words, in terms of things you care about absolute data privacy may be #1 on your list, others may be willing to accept less privacy for an internet that can continue to exist on an ad supported business model. Why should you have your way (enforced by the government) and others not get their way. We already have strong disclosure laws in both the US and Europe about data use, and at the end of the day it's your choice.

laurentoget 9y ago
As an individual who is concerned about their own privacy facing corporations with terabites of information, how can you hope finding out what happened to your data without gaining leverage through the government?
- jamiequint 9y ago
  Read the Privacy Policy where in the US and EU companies are required by law to say how they're using your data.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    So, relying on governments to dictate rules to protect us, in other words.
    - jamiequint 9y ago
      Disclosure laws impose minimum negative effects on the end-businesses that are required to provide them, while being simultaneously beneficial for consumers. I think they are a good balance and end up being a net positive for society. A strictly libertarian viewpoint would say that no disclosure should be required and you should just choose to avoid any service that doesn't provide full disclosure. After all, it's their right to not provide that information to you and it's your right to not use that service as a result.

codedokode 9y ago

That is how free market works: everyone is free to collect and trade personal data.

Steeeve 9y ago

Legislative solutions are always bad. What is needed is simply competition and for people who care about the things you care about to have influence among end user communities.

holografix 9y ago

More and more the US resembles the wild west where only the fittest survive and how fit you are depends heavily on the success of your parents and the financial circumstances you were born into. I liken it to capitalism 2.0 or a new form of corrupted monarchy where the 1% of royalty will protect their castles by slowly diminishing the power of the population’s representative government. In China there seems to be at least some anxiety amongst the wealthy that the Comunist party’s eye of Sauron might gaze upon you and your life tossed into the flaming lava as it’s harder for a system without elections to be corrupted by lobbyists. In the US the big money interests are supremely defiant. Europe still scarred by the wars seems to understand the need for opportunity and decency on a much deeper level.

brisance 9y ago

Seems a German minister is not entirely on board with privacy. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/germany-preparing-law-for-backdoors-in-any-type-of-modern-device/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/germany-pre...

darklajid 9y ago
He is a nutjob, always has been. And part of the stupidity seems to come with his job: Everyone sitting in that chair seems to believe that crime has to be reduced before all. He asking for random access to every device is like the minister of agriculture asking for stable and higher milk prices. Expected. He's unfortunately not just sputtering what he wants, he also wants stupid and dangerous things and likes to play the "think of the children" (his predecessor really liked that one), "fight the terrorism" cards. Every country has loonies.
- gmueckl 9y ago
  The surprising part here is that every minister in that position started to spout the exact same nonsense, regardless of his party association. I really wonder how that is even possible. I wish we would get a true liberal in that position soon, but our liberals are more concerned with deregulating companies than with citizen's rights.

sandov 9y ago

I value freedom more than privacy. I choose what to share and what to not share.

latexr 9y ago

And yet, we (EU) have lost Net Neutrality before the US. It was shoehorned into the bill that ends roaming charges[1]. I’d be remiss not to mention it saddens me that every time the US has faced internet-related difficulties (SOPA, PIPA, this latest FCC decision), I’ve seen multiple Europeans making noise in support, yet I haven’t observed the reverse to be true at all. In our own fight for Net Neutrality or against the VAT reform that hurts mostly small business, what I saw from the US was crickets. I agree with you that the EU is better than the US on these types of issues, but with every threat it faces, I see less results. [1]: Which I appreciate and have taken good advantage of already, but would gladly give up for Net Neutrality.

Feniks 9y ago

Yeah lobbyists haven't entirely cracked EU parliament yet. Its made up of people from 27 countries from god knows how many different parties. Difficult to bribe efficiently. The US is a lot easier, a two party system is heaven for corruption.