4 ms·

I disagree with both (longer) replies — but sure appreciate the style of debate. The reason to allow data transfer to the US for (arguably) trivial data is tha

I disagree with both (longer) replies — but sure appreciate the style of debate. The reason to allow data transfer to the US for (arguably) trivial data is that a private entity might choose Akamai as their subjectively best option. Restricting data flow for (arguably) no good reason puts restrictions on other who can invoke their own fundamental rights. Leaving aside that it’s also not great to force the technologically inferior solution for (arguably) moot policy reasons. As to the argument of informed consent, I think that’s another severe misconception. In my opinion, consent is only one option to legalise data processing. The fact that GDPR (and older German legislation) lists legitimate interest is important. We should — in my opinion — not fall for the fallacy that data is a whole different universe that can be split off from everything else. For most of our lives, data just flows with contracts, relationships, torts and whatnot. I do acknowledge that in the case, the university is Public and does not have (relevant) fundamental rights. Also that web analytics is likely one of the consent only scenarios. But we’re drifting into theory anyway.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
>"The reason to allow data transfer to the US for (arguably) trivial data is that a private entity might choose Akamai as their subjectively best option" And what if it's China/Russia, and its 'best' because it pays for private data? Does the argument still hold? At the end of the day, this is simple: is it my data, or not? If it's my property, why should someone elae have freedom over it?
- mellavora 5y ago
  Or, for a not-far-fetched example, say the data goes to a country where 1) you have relatives, and 2) homosexuality is a capital offense, and your search results may be use to implicate you of homosexuality, or by extension your relatives in that country, and the country's police are monitoring search histories.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Actually that is an excellent point, this is a real possibility for immigrants from the middle east and some other places
cycomanic 5y ago
Your argument hinges on the fact that you consider data privacy rights as "moot", "trivial" etc.. That ignores the fact that many people and the lawmakers disagree. In Germany for instance there is the fundamental right for "informelle Selbstbestimmung", the right to have governance over the information related to ones self. Now you could certainly argue that this right is irrelevant/not needed, but you didn't bring forth arguments to this extend. Without this your argument is largely about businesses being inconvenienced (many European countries don't give businesses fundamental rights like they do for people)
- kazen44 5y ago
  Also, the reasons these laws exist in the first place is because not too long ago, privacy was massively eroded in the eastern half of europe and intensively used for suppression.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

>"The reason to allow data transfer to the US for (arguably) trivial data is that a private entity might choose Akamai as their subjectively best option" And what if it's China/Russia, and its 'best' because it pays for private data? Does the argument still hold? At the end of the day, this is simple: is it my data, or not? If it's my property, why should someone elae have freedom over it?

mellavora 5y ago
Or, for a not-far-fetched example, say the data goes to a country where 1) you have relatives, and 2) homosexuality is a capital offense, and your search results may be use to implicate you of homosexuality, or by extension your relatives in that country, and the country's police are monitoring search histories.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Actually that is an excellent point, this is a real possibility for immigrants from the middle east and some other places

cycomanic 5y ago

Your argument hinges on the fact that you consider data privacy rights as "moot", "trivial" etc.. That ignores the fact that many people and the lawmakers disagree. In Germany for instance there is the fundamental right for "informelle Selbstbestimmung", the right to have governance over the information related to ones self. Now you could certainly argue that this right is irrelevant/not needed, but you didn't bring forth arguments to this extend. Without this your argument is largely about businesses being inconvenienced (many European countries don't give businesses fundamental rights like they do for people)

kazen44 5y ago
Also, the reasons these laws exist in the first place is because not too long ago, privacy was massively eroded in the eastern half of europe and intensively used for suppression.