4 ms·
Yes it is. The whole point of that decision is to make sure Akamai cannot says "we're an US entity, so EU privacy laws don't apply to us". That's why they are n
by fxtentacle 5y ago
Yes it is. The whole point of that decision is to make sure Akamai cannot says "we're an US entity, so EU privacy laws don't apply to us". That's why they are now forced to create a local subsidy, which will then be forced to follow local laws.
- detaro 5y agoAkamai did not claim "EU privacy laws don't apply to us", and that's really not what the case is about.
- akie 5y agoThe way I read the article, this will only work if the EU entity is legally able to tell the parent US entity to "get lost" in case the US government has decided it wants something from the EU entity. So it needs to be truly independent, at least that's the sense I got from the court's decision.
- gls2ro 5y agoIANAL but I dont think a parent company can ask a local branch to not follow local rules. So for example if in EU is forbidden to store information without consent the local branch cannot do that on EU servers.
- luckylion 5y agoI don't know whether they can, but Microsoft tried to work around that by having (one of?) their German Azure DCs be managed bei Deutsche Telekom for exactly that reason: their relationship would be defined by a contract, but Microsoft does not own Telekom and thus can't send them a memo to ignore the contract. I don't know the details, but I'm sure Microsoft considered whether it would be enough to just stick a "Microsoft Deutschland GmbH" label on it.