6 ms·

> the transfer may not be lawful Lawful under whose law? It's legally required by CLOUD act, so mandatory under American law. This is the long arm of Europe

> the transfer may not be lawful Lawful under whose law? It's legally required by CLOUD act, so mandatory under American law. This is the long arm of Europe just as much as America. You could have a company based and hosted in Belize that stores data about a European who committed a crime in America. America can demand that data under her law; Europe can demand it deleted under hers. Who is right? This is the making of both entities, not just America, unless there is some legal reason that the European law ought to take precedent. It's pretty clear what to do if you're incorporated in Europe or America; you follow the law of your base of operations. For multinationals or corporations alien to both, however, there's a dilemma. In other words, your moral favor towards GDPR doesn't make it more legally important than CLOUD, nor vice-versa. Both are just as significant for an alien company or for a multinational.

gmueckl 7y ago
Ever since the Peace of Westphalia, the international law is that each country sets its own laws for its own territory. Country A cannot enact a law that is effect on the territory of country B. So if the data is physically stored in the EU, it is naturally subject to the GDPR and no law outside the EU can do a damn about that. The CLOUD act, on the other hand, breaks that principle: it tries to compel actors outside the territory of the US to comply with US law.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Is it that clear-cut? The "actors" would be companies with a business presence in the USA. It's the data that is stored outside the country. I suppose the closest equivalent would be financial assets, e.g. funds held in bank accounts. Can a court in the USA order a US company, or one doing business in the USA, to hand over assets held in a foreign bank account?
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    Your question is missing an imprtant stipulation: "when it is illegal for the bank to execute that order under the laws of the country in which the bank account resides." In this case, compliance with the court order is simply impossible. No ifs, no buts.
    - tzs 7y ago
      The bank wouldn't be the one executing the order. In a situation analogous to a CLOUD Act situation, the account holder would be ordered to withdraw the money from his foreign account and turn it over. To the foreign bank, it is no different than any other customer withdrawing money from their account.
      - gmueckl 7y ago
        No, the client gives the order and the bank executes it. If the order is unlawful for the bank, they cannot execute it.
    - rebuilder 7y ago
      I'm not sure that matters to a government. It certainly matters to the company on the receiving end of such an order, but is a sovereign state going to let other states' legislation pre-empt their own?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    That's an easy one: yes. To make it a good analogy you'd need an injunction preventing them from doing so in the bank's country.
    - rebuilder 7y ago
      Would that change the situation in terms of what the US government can require?
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  US has been regulating activity outside of its borders for a loooooooong time. Look at the restrictions placed on the US financial system to combat money laundering. You can be indicted for "mis-using" the US financial system even if you are sitting in a place where we have no formal jurisdiction, but a legal assistance treaty does exist.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    The key here is the treaty: the other country created explicit law within its jurisdiction by freely agreeing to the treaty.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      Fair point. Although, I will point out the United States has a similar instrument of enforcing its way around the world. However, it isn't GPDR, but rather the AGM-114 Hellfire missile. Not that I really disagree with most of the cases. But still, it is enforcing one's political will beyond "official" borders, short of declaring war.
- wang_li 7y ago
  My understanding my be wildly incorrect, but I have the impression that the GDPR is something that applies to EU citizens regardless of where they are. A German tourist who visits Tennessee who uses his cellphone, with a local sim card, to log into a website hosted in the US to buy tickets to view the world's largest ball of twine can, under GDPR, require that said website remove all information about his visit beyond what is required by law. That seems to be quite reaching.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    This is the controversy. If I am the American site, my response to said German tourist is, "No, I operate under the laws of America and therefore am bound by no European decision." I.e. Europe has no jurisdiction over data stored outside her borders, and the citizen transmitted said data. It is indeed a reach, and unenforceable by Europe unless she personally sanctions company share-holders and agents from entry.
  - laaph 7y ago
    This is quite incorrect. However, a US citizen residing in EU will be covered by GDPR. But EU citizens residing in non-EU countries are not.
- MR4D 7y ago
  The end of WWII, with the US as the victors, changed that. Breton Woods is a great example of the massive change that was brought about. Yes, the Europeans agreed to it, but obviously under duress. Winners make the rules. Always have, always will. And the US can do a ton if they found a compelling enough reason to.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Err. "Obviously under duress"? It was Keynes (GB) and White (US) who initially inched toward Bretton Woods. The French were keen right from the start of their involvement. It was the USA that insisted on watering down Keynes' proposals. Well Harry White really, with the US as sole nation profiting from WW2, and now world's creditor which gave leverage, not victory. It was the end of Bretton Woods that started the ball rolling that led to the Euro. The end of Bretton Woods and US abandonment of the gold standard, was hugely inflationary - the mark of the seventies - and saw Europe trying to continue with a Bretton lite, though the first attempts didn't survive long.
    - MR4D 7y ago
      Duress - meaning the war was still on, and the only government that could save them was offering terms effectively defining a new world order - definitely completely different from the world before the war. Further, Bretton Woods was effectively a bribe, at least from the perspective of import tariffs. So, yes, I believe that it was both carrot and stick, so that the US would be able to get the former colonial powers to fall in line. Doing so also destroyed the colonial status (witness India, a mere 2 years after the war as but one example).
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        A new world order built on Keynes' plan. I'm not downplaying US part, Bretton Woods was, in essence an Anglo-US deal, but was hardly a US plan to save the rest. All the major nations of the time knew the progression that had followed Versailles, banking and currency crisis then Depression and war. The carrot to save Europe was the Marshall Plan. That the USA had all the money by 1944 certainly changed the conference dynamic, and undoubtedly contributed to White being able to overrule Keynes. As an aside, US economist Brad DeLong claims Keynes was ultimately proved right on every point he was overruled on. Indian independence was completely unconnected to any US action. Independence was inevitable from the 1930s. In a sentence: mid 30s Roundtables with Ambdekar, Gandhi, and McDonald; the outbreak of war in 39; and agreement to grant independence after supporting the war effort.
walterstucco 7y ago
> so mandatory under American law On American soil maybe... > Europe can demand it deleted under hers. Who is right? In this case GDPR clearly states that the data has to be available "for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims." Art. 17 GDPR, paragraph 3, sub (e) > In other words, your moral favor towards GDPR doesn't make it more legally important than CLOUD It is more important for European citizens, unless they are on American territory. That why it is called "the long arm of American law", because they try to extend their reach beyond what's in their right.

gmueckl 7y ago

Ever since the Peace of Westphalia, the international law is that each country sets its own laws for its own territory. Country A cannot enact a law that is effect on the territory of country B. So if the data is physically stored in the EU, it is naturally subject to the GDPR and no law outside the EU can do a damn about that. The CLOUD act, on the other hand, breaks that principle: it tries to compel actors outside the territory of the US to comply with US law.

rebuilder 7y ago
Is it that clear-cut? The "actors" would be companies with a business presence in the USA. It's the data that is stored outside the country. I suppose the closest equivalent would be financial assets, e.g. funds held in bank accounts. Can a court in the USA order a US company, or one doing business in the USA, to hand over assets held in a foreign bank account?
- gmueckl 7y ago
  Your question is missing an imprtant stipulation: "when it is illegal for the bank to execute that order under the laws of the country in which the bank account resides." In this case, compliance with the court order is simply impossible. No ifs, no buts.
  - tzs 7y ago
    The bank wouldn't be the one executing the order. In a situation analogous to a CLOUD Act situation, the account holder would be ordered to withdraw the money from his foreign account and turn it over. To the foreign bank, it is no different than any other customer withdrawing money from their account.
    - gmueckl 7y ago
      No, the client gives the order and the bank executes it. If the order is unlawful for the bank, they cannot execute it.
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    I'm not sure that matters to a government. It certainly matters to the company on the receiving end of such an order, but is a sovereign state going to let other states' legislation pre-empt their own?
- pjc50 7y ago
  That's an easy one: yes. To make it a good analogy you'd need an injunction preventing them from doing so in the bank's country.
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    Would that change the situation in terms of what the US government can require?
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
US has been regulating activity outside of its borders for a loooooooong time. Look at the restrictions placed on the US financial system to combat money laundering. You can be indicted for "mis-using" the US financial system even if you are sitting in a place where we have no formal jurisdiction, but a legal assistance treaty does exist.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  The key here is the treaty: the other country created explicit law within its jurisdiction by freely agreeing to the treaty.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    Fair point. Although, I will point out the United States has a similar instrument of enforcing its way around the world. However, it isn't GPDR, but rather the AGM-114 Hellfire missile. Not that I really disagree with most of the cases. But still, it is enforcing one's political will beyond "official" borders, short of declaring war.
wang_li 7y ago
My understanding my be wildly incorrect, but I have the impression that the GDPR is something that applies to EU citizens regardless of where they are. A German tourist who visits Tennessee who uses his cellphone, with a local sim card, to log into a website hosted in the US to buy tickets to view the world's largest ball of twine can, under GDPR, require that said website remove all information about his visit beyond what is required by law. That seems to be quite reaching.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  This is the controversy. If I am the American site, my response to said German tourist is, "No, I operate under the laws of America and therefore am bound by no European decision." I.e. Europe has no jurisdiction over data stored outside her borders, and the citizen transmitted said data. It is indeed a reach, and unenforceable by Europe unless she personally sanctions company share-holders and agents from entry.
- laaph 7y ago
  This is quite incorrect. However, a US citizen residing in EU will be covered by GDPR. But EU citizens residing in non-EU countries are not.
MR4D 7y ago
The end of WWII, with the US as the victors, changed that. Breton Woods is a great example of the massive change that was brought about. Yes, the Europeans agreed to it, but obviously under duress. Winners make the rules. Always have, always will. And the US can do a ton if they found a compelling enough reason to.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Err. "Obviously under duress"? It was Keynes (GB) and White (US) who initially inched toward Bretton Woods. The French were keen right from the start of their involvement. It was the USA that insisted on watering down Keynes' proposals. Well Harry White really, with the US as sole nation profiting from WW2, and now world's creditor which gave leverage, not victory. It was the end of Bretton Woods that started the ball rolling that led to the Euro. The end of Bretton Woods and US abandonment of the gold standard, was hugely inflationary - the mark of the seventies - and saw Europe trying to continue with a Bretton lite, though the first attempts didn't survive long.
  - MR4D 7y ago
    Duress - meaning the war was still on, and the only government that could save them was offering terms effectively defining a new world order - definitely completely different from the world before the war. Further, Bretton Woods was effectively a bribe, at least from the perspective of import tariffs. So, yes, I believe that it was both carrot and stick, so that the US would be able to get the former colonial powers to fall in line. Doing so also destroyed the colonial status (witness India, a mere 2 years after the war as but one example).
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      A new world order built on Keynes' plan. I'm not downplaying US part, Bretton Woods was, in essence an Anglo-US deal, but was hardly a US plan to save the rest. All the major nations of the time knew the progression that had followed Versailles, banking and currency crisis then Depression and war. The carrot to save Europe was the Marshall Plan. That the USA had all the money by 1944 certainly changed the conference dynamic, and undoubtedly contributed to White being able to overrule Keynes. As an aside, US economist Brad DeLong claims Keynes was ultimately proved right on every point he was overruled on. Indian independence was completely unconnected to any US action. Independence was inevitable from the 1930s. In a sentence: mid 30s Roundtables with Ambdekar, Gandhi, and McDonald; the outbreak of war in 39; and agreement to grant independence after supporting the war effort.

walterstucco 7y ago

> so mandatory under American law On American soil maybe... > Europe can demand it deleted under hers. Who is right? In this case GDPR clearly states that the data has to be available "for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims." Art. 17 GDPR, paragraph 3, sub (e) > In other words, your moral favor towards GDPR doesn't make it more legally important than CLOUD It is more important for European citizens, unless they are on American territory. That why it is called "the long arm of American law", because they try to extend their reach beyond what's in their right.