3 ms·
> European court of justice found in July that there were insufficient safeguards against snooping by US intelligence agencies. > In a court filing in Dublin,
by megous 6y ago
> European court of justice found in July that there were insufficient safeguards against snooping by US intelligence agencies.
> In a court filing in Dublin, Facebook’s associate general counsel wrote that enforcing the ban would leave the company unable to operate.
Wait, does that mean that snooping by US intelligence agencies on people in EU is required for Facebook operation?
It's a weird ban though, as if interpreted as described, it would lead to two Facebooks where EU/US users would not be able to interact.
- cblconfederate 6y agothat is not surprising anymore (the ruling wasnt a total ban on sending data, rather that there must be restrictions over what private data can be transferred)
- patmcc 6y ago>>>Wait, does that mean that snooping by US intelligence agencies on people in EU is required for Facebook operation? Any US-based company is required to submit to warrants/subpoenas (assuming they're legal/proper) from intelligence agencies. It may certainly be the case that courts would hold Facebook in contempt if they refused - even if they refused in order to comply with EU law.
- bleepblorp 6y agoUS intelligence agencies don't need warrants to get data regarding non-US persons. Such data must be handed over upon request. This is both a problem for individual civil liberties and for non-US businesses, as the US intelligence system does conduct commercial espionage.
- nickff 6y ago>" US intelligence agencies don't need warrants to get data regarding non-US persons. Such data must be handed over upon request." My understanding was that intelligence agencies were required to get a so-called "FISA warrant" to compel the production of information. [1] Am I missing something? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
- addicted 6y agoEssentially the EU court ruled that the FISA safeguards are not sufficient.
- nickff 6y agoI would agree that the so-called "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)" is really more of a board than a court, but that doesn't mean that US companies are simply providing information upon request. I view the FISC as a symptom of the ever-growing regulatory state, but that is a (somewhat) separate matter.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago> Am I missing something Yeah: Stellar Wind, muscular, prism and skynet Basically the national surveillance agency wants APIs with all communication networks, so they can request anything, arguing their automated big data mining will only request data they are allowed to request, by law or warrant. The data providing business should not look into the details what they request, because that would endanger national security. The FISA courts have a history of signing very broad warrants like "all data related to who talks to whom necessary for national security" And the agency has argued in the past that they can copy anything anyway because only if a human officially looks at the data in an investigation, a warrant is needed. As long as it is only fully automated machines running big data analysis on it, and no one is looking, such rules do not apply. And the FISA court pretty much signs any "look into it" order if the machine says "i found something, someone should look into this". The worst of the worst is that skynet thing: it creates lists of people that are to be targeted by automated flying killer robots. I know this sounds ridiculous. That is the reason why they picked that name.
- unearth3d 6y ago"Wait, does that mean that snooping ... is required for Facebook operation?" I remember reading a Wired article probably 10 years ago that an early large investor was the NSA/or similar, so yes, snooping may be a feature.
- jeromegv 6y agoThe only source I could find was that Quora thread https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-substance-of-the-claim-that-Facebook-is-funded-in-part-by-the-US-government-and-in-particular-a-branch-which-is-associated-with-the-CIA https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-substance-of-the-claim-tha...
- Out_of_Characte 6y agoIts just weird interactions with common data handling laws, usually any data travelling trough US is subjected to US intelligence agencies where applicable by this sovereign nation (Obviously) and an european facebook post read by a US citizen is still required to follow european data protection regulations(also completely applicable here) So the new age internet needs bureaucratic regulation tags to comply with all laws.
- anticensor 6y agoWhy not repurpose BGP into a real border gateway, enabling per-packet customs duties and regulatory inspection /s Think of something like $0.25 per BGP query. Even that would be enough to grind the web into halt.
- jiveturkey 6y agothat's a willfully obtuse reading. the safe harbor / privacy shield agreement was dq'd because US intelligence can reach into the data, thereby not meeting the requirements of GDPR. facebook can't operate because it now lacks safe harbor, and is unable to meet the alternate requirements for data protection. it's a very interesting ruling, because SCC was upheld, and US intelligence can just as easily look into data transferred under SCC agreements. in my brief reading, users have to explicitly agree to allow export of their data under SCC though.
- em-bee 6y agoit would result in a federated system, just like email, where communication between europeans stay in europe, and only intercontinental contacts go across the atlantic.