3 ms·

But... they already voted on this. From the article: (the EU parliament) "takes the view that the current #PrivacyShield arrangement does not provide the adequ

by 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).

by akie 8y ago

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).