3 ms·

I think part of it is desperation. There is absolutely nothing the EU can say that will convince the American politicians that privacy and corporations are out

I think part of it is desperation. There is absolutely nothing the EU can say that will convince the American politicians that privacy and corporations are out of control in the US. Americans might believe it's fine, but Germans are careful about how personal data is handled and who has access to it. Culturally the US and Europe is drifting further apart and from the European side it's very hard to see that the US isn't wrong.

thisisnotatest1 5y ago
To me, it's economic and political nationalism, and a lot of resentment. Citizens use google and facebook and whatsapp because they trust these companies. Politicians are trying to intervene because politicians like posturing, being the center of attention, pretending problems exist and they have the solution. In Europe, politicians dominate too much the debate. We are gullible not for trusting google, but for trusting politcians
thisisnotatest1 5y ago
Pretty sure Google and Facebook have more trust than politicians. Maybe politicians should ban themselves?
- Isinlor 5y ago
  It's not about Google or Facebook. It is about USA politicians and USA laws that allow USA to do anything with our data as if we were terrorists. The "Privacy Shield" was established by politicians twice already and dismantled twice by EU courts. The initiative to strike down privacy shield and enforce ban is a result of civil society. https://noyb.eu/en/austrian-dsb-eu-us-data-transfers-google-analytics-illegal https://noyb.eu/en/austrian-dsb-eu-us-data-transfers-google-... > 2020 CJEU ruling hits the real world. In July 2020, the CJEU has issued its groundbreaking "Schrems II" ruling, holding that a transfer to US providers that fall under FISA 702 and EO 12.333 violate the rules on international data transfers in the GDPR. The CJEU consequently annulled the transfer deal "Privacy Shield", after annulling the previous deal "Safe Harbor" in 2015. While this sent shock waves through the tech industry, US providers and EU data exporters have largely ignored the case. Just like Microsoft, Facebook or Amazon, Google has relied on so-called "Standard Contract Clauses" to continue data transfers and calm its European business partners. > Max Schrems, honorary chair of noyb.eu: "Instead of actually adapting services to be GDPR compliant, US companies have tried to simply add some text to their privacy policies and ignore the Court of Justice. Many EU companies have followed the lead instead of switching to legal options."
- mrweasel 5y ago
  That depend on where you live. Regardless of how extreme, I trust every single politicians in the Danish parliament a lot more than both Google and Facebook.
kmeisthax 5y ago
American here - we absolutely do not think it's fine. There is no cultural drift[0]. The reason why we don't have GDPR-like laws is that our political system uses culture wars as a distraction tactic. There are plenty of things that Americans absolutely support that have a snowball's chance in hell if it were put into the form of a bill for Congress to vote on. The EU basically threatening to ban the US from the Internet if they don't play ball on data protection is the sort of thing that might just be loud and forceful enough to get US politicians to actually pass some strong privacy legislation. I'm also happy that US intelligence agencies have been specifically called out - it's like some kind of virtuous inverse of the Five Eyes policy-laundering strategy. My only complaint is that this ruling is the second-biggest incursion[1] of national borders into what is ostensibly supposed to be an international space. If interpreted a specific way, one might argue that even basic things like messaging systems and web forums need to be totally hosted in the EU, or users need to be siloed off from the US. I'd much rather prefer an international privacy framework that fixes the privacy issues without splintering the Internet, but we tried that with Privacy Shield and the courts shot that down. [0] More generally, I've found that the gulf in culture between countries is often overstated. Usually because the person overstating it either wants to make the foreign country seem alien and thus interesting, or seem alien and thus dangerous. [1] First-biggest one being China's Great Firewall
- onaworkcomputer 5y ago
  [dead]
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  I sometimes see this argument that nations aren't responsible for what their leaders do... but don't they ? After all it was the nation that elected those leaders to represent them ! (This principle is sometimes applied even to the non-nation peoples, in non-democratic countries, as in "you get the leaders that you deserve".) Also consider how it looks from outside : you can't expect to be aware of all the internal political details of all the countries, at some point you have to consider the people and their government as a single entity (remember how this is also what nations are supposed to be ?)

thisisnotatest1 5y ago

To me, it's economic and political nationalism, and a lot of resentment. Citizens use google and facebook and whatsapp because they trust these companies. Politicians are trying to intervene because politicians like posturing, being the center of attention, pretending problems exist and they have the solution. In Europe, politicians dominate too much the debate. We are gullible not for trusting google, but for trusting politcians

thisisnotatest1 5y ago

Pretty sure Google and Facebook have more trust than politicians. Maybe politicians should ban themselves?

Isinlor 5y ago
It's not about Google or Facebook. It is about USA politicians and USA laws that allow USA to do anything with our data as if we were terrorists. The "Privacy Shield" was established by politicians twice already and dismantled twice by EU courts. The initiative to strike down privacy shield and enforce ban is a result of civil society. https://noyb.eu/en/austrian-dsb-eu-us-data-transfers-google-analytics-illegal https://noyb.eu/en/austrian-dsb-eu-us-data-transfers-google-... > 2020 CJEU ruling hits the real world. In July 2020, the CJEU has issued its groundbreaking "Schrems II" ruling, holding that a transfer to US providers that fall under FISA 702 and EO 12.333 violate the rules on international data transfers in the GDPR. The CJEU consequently annulled the transfer deal "Privacy Shield", after annulling the previous deal "Safe Harbor" in 2015. While this sent shock waves through the tech industry, US providers and EU data exporters have largely ignored the case. Just like Microsoft, Facebook or Amazon, Google has relied on so-called "Standard Contract Clauses" to continue data transfers and calm its European business partners. > Max Schrems, honorary chair of noyb.eu: "Instead of actually adapting services to be GDPR compliant, US companies have tried to simply add some text to their privacy policies and ignore the Court of Justice. Many EU companies have followed the lead instead of switching to legal options."
mrweasel 5y ago
That depend on where you live. Regardless of how extreme, I trust every single politicians in the Danish parliament a lot more than both Google and Facebook.

kmeisthax 5y ago

American here - we absolutely do not think it's fine. There is no cultural drift[0]. The reason why we don't have GDPR-like laws is that our political system uses culture wars as a distraction tactic. There are plenty of things that Americans absolutely support that have a snowball's chance in hell if it were put into the form of a bill for Congress to vote on. The EU basically threatening to ban the US from the Internet if they don't play ball on data protection is the sort of thing that might just be loud and forceful enough to get US politicians to actually pass some strong privacy legislation. I'm also happy that US intelligence agencies have been specifically called out - it's like some kind of virtuous inverse of the Five Eyes policy-laundering strategy. My only complaint is that this ruling is the second-biggest incursion[1] of national borders into what is ostensibly supposed to be an international space. If interpreted a specific way, one might argue that even basic things like messaging systems and web forums need to be totally hosted in the EU, or users need to be siloed off from the US. I'd much rather prefer an international privacy framework that fixes the privacy issues without splintering the Internet, but we tried that with Privacy Shield and the courts shot that down. [0] More generally, I've found that the gulf in culture between countries is often overstated. Usually because the person overstating it either wants to make the foreign country seem alien and thus interesting, or seem alien and thus dangerous. [1] First-biggest one being China's Great Firewall

onaworkcomputer 5y ago
[dead]
BlueTemplar 5y ago
I sometimes see this argument that nations aren't responsible for what their leaders do... but don't they ? After all it was the nation that elected those leaders to represent them ! (This principle is sometimes applied even to the non-nation peoples, in non-democratic countries, as in "you get the leaders that you deserve".) Also consider how it looks from outside : you can't expect to be aware of all the internal political details of all the countries, at some point you have to consider the people and their government as a single entity (remember how this is also what nations are supposed to be ?)