3 ms·

Cross-jurisdiction issues crop up all the time. Sometimes they must follow the route that provides the most privacy and this is compliant everywhere, sometimes

by vr46 6y ago

Cross-jurisdiction issues crop up all the time. Sometimes they must follow the route that provides the most privacy and this is compliant everywhere, sometimes there are trade deals and compromises are made. In a conversation between an American and a German, I would expect the American to get EU levels of protection. This is all pie-in-the-sky though, I’m sure.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
If I'm understanding the article correctly, the problem is that the EU levels of protection give EU datacenters a monopoly on the data. The regulation isn't compatible with other nations passing the same sort of laws. If the US passed a mirroring law in order to protect Americans' data from being spied on by GHCQ, then you have two mutually exclusive privacy regulations. The data can't exist outside of the EU, but the data also can't exist outside of the US. Considering the competing goals (in this hypothetical situation where the US doesn't want Americans being spied on by the EU, and the EU doesn't want Europeans being spied on by the US), I have 0 faith in the governments being able to resolve this balkanization.
- vr46 6y ago
  Possibly, but I think the key lines are "the US does not limit surveillance of EU citizens" and "there were insufficient safeguards against snooping by US intelligence agencies", which suggests that it's fixable, although the medicine is unpleasant for US-based-whoopee-you-get-free-data-and-you-get-free-data companies; The EU is operating pretty consistently, I'd say. They work like a club with rules that allows anyone to enter provided they follow their rules, and making the club very attractive to join so that entrants willingly make the changes. The US is generally not inclined to take other countries' interests to heart and is not renowned for equitable relationship-building, but it defends its citizens' rights and its companies' rights, so the EU does the same and Facebook blubs, it's just standard business PR.

by vr46 6y ago

Rebelgecko 6y ago

If I'm understanding the article correctly, the problem is that the EU levels of protection give EU datacenters a monopoly on the data. The regulation isn't compatible with other nations passing the same sort of laws. If the US passed a mirroring law in order to protect Americans' data from being spied on by GHCQ, then you have two mutually exclusive privacy regulations. The data can't exist outside of the EU, but the data also can't exist outside of the US. Considering the competing goals (in this hypothetical situation where the US doesn't want Americans being spied on by the EU, and the EU doesn't want Europeans being spied on by the US), I have 0 faith in the governments being able to resolve this balkanization.

vr46 6y ago
Possibly, but I think the key lines are "the US does not limit surveillance of EU citizens" and "there were insufficient safeguards against snooping by US intelligence agencies", which suggests that it's fixable, although the medicine is unpleasant for US-based-whoopee-you-get-free-data-and-you-get-free-data companies; The EU is operating pretty consistently, I'd say. They work like a club with rules that allows anyone to enter provided they follow their rules, and making the club very attractive to join so that entrants willingly make the changes. The US is generally not inclined to take other countries' interests to heart and is not renowned for equitable relationship-building, but it defends its citizens' rights and its companies' rights, so the EU does the same and Facebook blubs, it's just standard business PR.