8 ms·

Max Schrems is great, and the hero we need. But I’ll believe it when I see it, that the EU parliament dares to vote against such massive business interest. GDPR

Max Schrems is great, and the hero we need. But I’ll believe it when I see it, that the EU parliament dares to vote against such massive business interest. GDPR was one thing, this is a totally different level.

akie 8y ago
But... they already voted on this. From the article: (the EU parliament) "takes the view that the current #PrivacyShield arrangement does not provide the adequate level of protection", "calls therefore on the Commission to suspend the Privacy Shield until the US authorities comply" https://twitter.com/bendrath/status/1014832868969910273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1014832868969910273&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com%2F2018%2F07%2F05%2Feu-parliament-calls-for-privacy-shield-to-be-pulled-until-us-complies%2F https://twitter.com/bendrath/status/1014832868969910273?ref_...
- Angostura 8y ago
  Yes. I really wouldn't like to be the Commission facing this one at the moment, particularly since the current US administration will presumably see this as related to the larger international trade-war. My personal opinion is that this isn't tradewar politicing by Europe, it's the result of a genuine interest in citizen's privacy, but I can see why it could be taken as such.
  - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
    > particularly since the current US administration will presumably see this as related to the larger international trade-war. It's not just the administration. Every time the EU has levied fines against Google a lot of Americans on HN claim that the EU is doing it because they're jealous of how successful American businesses are.
  - phobosdeimos 8y ago
    Yeah, one would assume that when one signs a treaty with another country you try to honor that treaty. The US generally doesn't give a damn and will usually do what it wants anyway.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      And that you structure your country so that you can comply. In the case of Karl and Walter LaGrand there was a clear violation of the Vienna Convention, a binding verdict by the International Court of Justice, a sympathetic US President, but the Governor of Arizona didn‘t care, and America just said „too bad, we signed this convention, but if a state doesn‘t want to comply, what can we do?“. And SCOTUS confirmed that stance.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > And that you structure your country so that you can comply That really ought to be taken into account in the treaty negotiations. If a company signs an agreement the company can't legally comply with, that tends to have the effect of nullifying the agreement more than forcing the company to change. (Tends to. Generally.)
- azernik 8y ago
  This is not a binding vote; however, it does indicate an avenue for more hardball action (specifically, giving a deadline by which it will consider the Commission non-compliant with GDPR unless it takes action).
simonh 8y ago
Massive US business interests. Why should the EU parliament care about that? There's an obvious solution for Facebook et al. Host their primary data centers in the EU and move their US user data there, instead of vice versa.
- beberlei 8y ago
  If privacy shield gets scraped, then I might have to switch my European business to use only European third party services. At our company we use a carefully selected number of U.S. services that we believe have the interest of their customers and data at heart, but without privacy shield we might not be allowed to use them. The massive downside for me as EU business: 1. Lost time and money having to migrate. 2. Usually european companies providing the same service are worse, leaving me and my customers worse off.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Oh absolutely. In other words, you'll be in exactly the same situation US businesses are in, that rely on Chinese and other suppliers that are now subject to tariffs. Politicians, eh? Hope someone wins this trade war soon so we can get it over with.
    - madez 8y ago
      This is not a trade-war issue. This is a long planned review of the Privacy Shield regulation. Even if all trade conflicts ended, this would continue because it is not about trade but fundamental rights.
      - davidvaughan 8y ago
        It is possible that the resolution gained more votes because of the trade war. In general, Members of the European Parliament have less understanding of business and trade than businesspeople and traders, and in my view[0] tend to follow their emotions more in those areas. Some also have a streak of anti-Americanism, in varying degrees. As the heat increases, this sort of resolution may occur more frequently. I'm sceptical of the notion that MEPs all voted according to their devotion to fundamental rights. None of this means that I believe pursuing the resolution into legislation is a bad or a good idea. I'd have to see (and understand the consequences of) the proposed measure. [0]This is an impression; I have no empirical data
lumberjack 8y ago
They are not business interests within the EU.

akie 8y ago

But... they already voted on this. From the article: (the EU parliament) "takes the view that the current #PrivacyShield arrangement does not provide the adequate level of protection", "calls therefore on the Commission to suspend the Privacy Shield until the US authorities comply" https://twitter.com/bendrath/status/1014832868969910273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1014832868969910273&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com%2F2018%2F07%2F05%2Feu-parliament-calls-for-privacy-shield-to-be-pulled-until-us-complies%2F https://twitter.com/bendrath/status/1014832868969910273?ref_...

Angostura 8y ago
Yes. I really wouldn't like to be the Commission facing this one at the moment, particularly since the current US administration will presumably see this as related to the larger international trade-war. My personal opinion is that this isn't tradewar politicing by Europe, it's the result of a genuine interest in citizen's privacy, but I can see why it could be taken as such.
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago
  > particularly since the current US administration will presumably see this as related to the larger international trade-war. It's not just the administration. Every time the EU has levied fines against Google a lot of Americans on HN claim that the EU is doing it because they're jealous of how successful American businesses are.
- phobosdeimos 8y ago
  Yeah, one would assume that when one signs a treaty with another country you try to honor that treaty. The US generally doesn't give a damn and will usually do what it wants anyway.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    And that you structure your country so that you can comply. In the case of Karl and Walter LaGrand there was a clear violation of the Vienna Convention, a binding verdict by the International Court of Justice, a sympathetic US President, but the Governor of Arizona didn‘t care, and America just said „too bad, we signed this convention, but if a state doesn‘t want to comply, what can we do?“. And SCOTUS confirmed that stance.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > And that you structure your country so that you can comply That really ought to be taken into account in the treaty negotiations. If a company signs an agreement the company can't legally comply with, that tends to have the effect of nullifying the agreement more than forcing the company to change. (Tends to. Generally.)
azernik 8y ago
This is not a binding vote; however, it does indicate an avenue for more hardball action (specifically, giving a deadline by which it will consider the Commission non-compliant with GDPR unless it takes action).

simonh 8y ago

Massive US business interests. Why should the EU parliament care about that? There's an obvious solution for Facebook et al. Host their primary data centers in the EU and move their US user data there, instead of vice versa.

beberlei 8y ago
If privacy shield gets scraped, then I might have to switch my European business to use only European third party services. At our company we use a carefully selected number of U.S. services that we believe have the interest of their customers and data at heart, but without privacy shield we might not be allowed to use them. The massive downside for me as EU business: 1. Lost time and money having to migrate. 2. Usually european companies providing the same service are worse, leaving me and my customers worse off.
- simonh 8y ago
  Oh absolutely. In other words, you'll be in exactly the same situation US businesses are in, that rely on Chinese and other suppliers that are now subject to tariffs. Politicians, eh? Hope someone wins this trade war soon so we can get it over with.
  - madez 8y ago
    This is not a trade-war issue. This is a long planned review of the Privacy Shield regulation. Even if all trade conflicts ended, this would continue because it is not about trade but fundamental rights.
    - davidvaughan 8y ago
      It is possible that the resolution gained more votes because of the trade war. In general, Members of the European Parliament have less understanding of business and trade than businesspeople and traders, and in my view[0] tend to follow their emotions more in those areas. Some also have a streak of anti-Americanism, in varying degrees. As the heat increases, this sort of resolution may occur more frequently. I'm sceptical of the notion that MEPs all voted according to their devotion to fundamental rights. None of this means that I believe pursuing the resolution into legislation is a bad or a good idea. I'd have to see (and understand the consequences of) the proposed measure. [0]This is an impression; I have no empirical data

lumberjack 8y ago

They are not business interests within the EU.