3 ms·

The title sounds to a general impact ("..Paves the Way to EU-Based Cloud Services"). But on closer read, it seems to partially apply to SaaS/PaaS cloud service

The title sounds to a general impact ("..Paves the Way to EU-Based Cloud Services"). But on closer read, it seems to partially apply to SaaS/PaaS cloud services, which hold data outside EU. Google also provides IaaS/PaaS cloud offering based within EU as well [0]. [0]: https://cloud.google.com/about/locations#europe https://cloud.google.com/about/locations#europe

Kbelicius 5y ago
Considering that this ruling is based on schrems II case which concluded that FISA 702 and EO 12.333 are not compatible with GDPR it would seem that holding data within the EU is not a solution since FISA 702 and EO 12.333 are applicable to data held anywhere in the world by a US company.
- cdrx 5y ago
  That is my understanding too. The issue is as much about jurisdiction as the physical location of the hard drive that holds data.
- zxienin 5y ago
  Am not legally savvy on this to be educated on merits of what cited FISA/EO mean. I am curious as to what argument can find it acceptable to block US company, also when they place data within EU and can’t be compelled to handover to US law enforcement.
  - nisegami 5y ago
    >can’t be compelled to handover to US law enforcement Even if a US company holds their data in the EU, due to FISA 702, the CLOUD act and EO 12.333, they can still be compelled to hand over that data. So being a US company is a dealbreaker, regardless of where the data is stored.
    - zxienin 5y ago
      What if google uses EU based legal company? https://cloud.google.com/terms/google-entity https://cloud.google.com/terms/google-entity
      - KptMarchewa 5y ago
        I doubt that US courts will fall for this transparent legal tricks. It's not Google, it's Google EU!
      - floatingatoll 5y ago
        Google would have to redesign their corporate structure so that EU customers of Google EU are never subject to US law, with no US-owned business anywhere in the subsidiary chain. Imagine that this is the current chain: Alphabet (US) -> Google (US) -> Google (EU) Under such a structure, Google (EU) is not GDPR-compliant, and will need to drop all upstream inheritance of (US) to comply with this ruling. I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.

Kbelicius 5y ago

Considering that this ruling is based on schrems II case which concluded that FISA 702 and EO 12.333 are not compatible with GDPR it would seem that holding data within the EU is not a solution since FISA 702 and EO 12.333 are applicable to data held anywhere in the world by a US company.

cdrx 5y ago
That is my understanding too. The issue is as much about jurisdiction as the physical location of the hard drive that holds data.
zxienin 5y ago
Am not legally savvy on this to be educated on merits of what cited FISA/EO mean. I am curious as to what argument can find it acceptable to block US company, also when they place data within EU and can’t be compelled to handover to US law enforcement.
- nisegami 5y ago
  >can’t be compelled to handover to US law enforcement Even if a US company holds their data in the EU, due to FISA 702, the CLOUD act and EO 12.333, they can still be compelled to hand over that data. So being a US company is a dealbreaker, regardless of where the data is stored.
  - zxienin 5y ago
    What if google uses EU based legal company? https://cloud.google.com/terms/google-entity https://cloud.google.com/terms/google-entity
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      I doubt that US courts will fall for this transparent legal tricks. It's not Google, it's Google EU!
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      Google would have to redesign their corporate structure so that EU customers of Google EU are never subject to US law, with no US-owned business anywhere in the subsidiary chain. Imagine that this is the current chain: Alphabet (US) -> Google (US) -> Google (EU) Under such a structure, Google (EU) is not GDPR-compliant, and will need to drop all upstream inheritance of (US) to comply with this ruling. I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.