8 ms·

Taking this to the logical extreme: A French website can not use any American service, right? Because any American services "are not sufficient to exclude the

Taking this to the logical extreme: A French website can not use any American service, right? Because any American services "are not sufficient to exclude the accessibility of this data for US intelligence services".

einpoklum 5y ago
Indeed, a French website which keeps private information about its users must not - ethically, morally - use US services which are accessible to US intelligence agencies. That is irrespective of any legislation or court rulings, it's just common sense.
- verdverm 5y ago
  Since everyone is spying on everyone, what's the ethical or moral issue here?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Somehow there is lot of complaining about China doing it... I really don't understand that one...
  - zelphirkalt 5y ago
    The issue would be, that the website developers / their management contributes to the issue, by enabling partier to do that spying. If no data was send to another party, then spying on that data is much harder and probably unattractive for most use-cases. GA data becomes valuable through collecting from many many senders. While the people doing the spying are already doing something ethically very questionable, the person deciding what data is collected on a webservice can still make the decision to contribute to the problem, or be vigilant about data protection.
    - verdverm 5y ago
      So you are saying the US intelligence agencies have some unfettered access to all of GA data? Or that it is sent unencrypted and intercepted in transit? It's not the DNS calls or phone companies that are more to worry about?
      - zelphirkalt 5y ago
        If US intelligence wants to have access, they will, via their law, as far as I understand. They will require Alphabet to give the data, Alphabet will get it from Google, and that is it. No need to listen or intercept anything. Best thing you can do is not to make use of GA in the first place, so that no such data of visitors of your websites exists in Google infrastructure.
        verdverm 5y ago
        I think your understanding of US intelligence and forcing companies into compliance needs updating. First, it is exaggerated, which is not surprising in today's media and outrage climate. Second, things have changed since Snowden and the congressional oversight had been rolled out. Third, GA is not that valuable compared to other sources. Your chief complaining would be better spent about how Google uses the data rather than intelligence agencies. Also note that Google fights against overly broad intelligence / police requests and publishes data on how many they get and comply with.
        zelphirkalt 5y ago
        I agree, that one should be more worried about how Google uses the data. I think I wrote about the US intelligence thingy, because it was closer to the topic. The question, why the court ruling went this way and what it rests on. If there was no possibility for the US to access the data, then Google could probably simply pinky finger swear, that they are not doing anything evil with the data and EU law might be fine with it. Does it matter, whether the scenario is "exaggerated"? If it is possible, it needs to be considered by the law. Otherwise it might soon become less exaggerated and more reality than we would wish.
- nickpp 5y ago
  I wonder who are people more afraid of exposing their private information to: the USA or their own government.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    As a US analog, I'm more concerned with my own government collecting data on me than I am about the Chinese. One of those has an entire ocean to cross to cause me IRL problems.
  - vault 5y ago
    The USA, of course. Don't forget you vote for your government, not for Google's CEO.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Google's CEO has pretty much ZERO powers over me. The USA government is (largely) democratic and (mostly) obeys laws. But my government... is not the one I voted for and I trust it 0%. Because I do not live in the West but in one of the great majority of countries with a corrupt, abusive government. The democratic governments of the West are the exception, not the rule.
      - einpoklum 5y ago
        > The USA government is (largely) democratic Well, if I may nitpick, it's a federal republic rather than a democracy... More to the point though, there was this study at Princeton U about the correlation between US government policy and popular opinion on a variety of subjects which found that public opinion correlates very poorly with government policy / legislation passed, but opinions among the very-rich correlate well. Can't remember the exact reference right now. > and (mostly) obeys laws. Oh, definitely not. It can well be argued that there is constant mass violation of the constitution. And regardless of this, the US is such a notorious outlaw on the international level that not only does it refuse to accept jurisdiction of the international criminal court, but has in fact threatened action against court staff if the court hears any case against it: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-internation...
PoignardAzur 5y ago
We're quickly getting there. For instance, any service that handles health data absolutely cannot have the data be accessible in a way, shape or form by american-owned entities, for any reason. It's not hard to imagine that, as time goes on, these same limitations will be expanded to other types of decreasingly sensitive data. And honestly, that's perfectly reasonable. The US government gives itself the right to systematically spy on everything going through US cloud companies. Precedent has shown it can and will use that data against the interests of its supposed allies, even for industrial espionage. If the US says "every US company must give over european data to the government", then at some point europeans have to say "US companies can't have european data".
- rebelde 5y ago
  What about Hungarian services? Hungary is in the EU.
RIMR 5y ago
Taking this to the logical conclusion: This is the fault of US Intelligence Services for overreaching to the point where it impacts general trust in US companies, and should be solidly blamed on them for being legitimately untrustworthy and exploitive.

einpoklum 5y ago

Indeed, a French website which keeps private information about its users must not - ethically, morally - use US services which are accessible to US intelligence agencies. That is irrespective of any legislation or court rulings, it's just common sense.

verdverm 5y ago
Since everyone is spying on everyone, what's the ethical or moral issue here?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Somehow there is lot of complaining about China doing it... I really don't understand that one...
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  The issue would be, that the website developers / their management contributes to the issue, by enabling partier to do that spying. If no data was send to another party, then spying on that data is much harder and probably unattractive for most use-cases. GA data becomes valuable through collecting from many many senders. While the people doing the spying are already doing something ethically very questionable, the person deciding what data is collected on a webservice can still make the decision to contribute to the problem, or be vigilant about data protection.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    So you are saying the US intelligence agencies have some unfettered access to all of GA data? Or that it is sent unencrypted and intercepted in transit? It's not the DNS calls or phone companies that are more to worry about?
    - zelphirkalt 5y ago
      If US intelligence wants to have access, they will, via their law, as far as I understand. They will require Alphabet to give the data, Alphabet will get it from Google, and that is it. No need to listen or intercept anything. Best thing you can do is not to make use of GA in the first place, so that no such data of visitors of your websites exists in Google infrastructure.
      - verdverm 5y ago
        I think your understanding of US intelligence and forcing companies into compliance needs updating. First, it is exaggerated, which is not surprising in today's media and outrage climate. Second, things have changed since Snowden and the congressional oversight had been rolled out. Third, GA is not that valuable compared to other sources. Your chief complaining would be better spent about how Google uses the data rather than intelligence agencies. Also note that Google fights against overly broad intelligence / police requests and publishes data on how many they get and comply with.
        zelphirkalt 5y ago
        I agree, that one should be more worried about how Google uses the data. I think I wrote about the US intelligence thingy, because it was closer to the topic. The question, why the court ruling went this way and what it rests on. If there was no possibility for the US to access the data, then Google could probably simply pinky finger swear, that they are not doing anything evil with the data and EU law might be fine with it. Does it matter, whether the scenario is "exaggerated"? If it is possible, it needs to be considered by the law. Otherwise it might soon become less exaggerated and more reality than we would wish.
nickpp 5y ago
I wonder who are people more afraid of exposing their private information to: the USA or their own government.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  As a US analog, I'm more concerned with my own government collecting data on me than I am about the Chinese. One of those has an entire ocean to cross to cause me IRL problems.
- vault 5y ago
  The USA, of course. Don't forget you vote for your government, not for Google's CEO.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Google's CEO has pretty much ZERO powers over me. The USA government is (largely) democratic and (mostly) obeys laws. But my government... is not the one I voted for and I trust it 0%. Because I do not live in the West but in one of the great majority of countries with a corrupt, abusive government. The democratic governments of the West are the exception, not the rule.
    - einpoklum 5y ago
      > The USA government is (largely) democratic Well, if I may nitpick, it's a federal republic rather than a democracy... More to the point though, there was this study at Princeton U about the correlation between US government policy and popular opinion on a variety of subjects which found that public opinion correlates very poorly with government policy / legislation passed, but opinions among the very-rich correlate well. Can't remember the exact reference right now. > and (mostly) obeys laws. Oh, definitely not. It can well be argued that there is constant mass violation of the constitution. And regardless of this, the US is such a notorious outlaw on the international level that not only does it refuse to accept jurisdiction of the international criminal court, but has in fact threatened action against court staff if the court hears any case against it: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-internation...

PoignardAzur 5y ago

We're quickly getting there. For instance, any service that handles health data absolutely cannot have the data be accessible in a way, shape or form by american-owned entities, for any reason. It's not hard to imagine that, as time goes on, these same limitations will be expanded to other types of decreasingly sensitive data. And honestly, that's perfectly reasonable. The US government gives itself the right to systematically spy on everything going through US cloud companies. Precedent has shown it can and will use that data against the interests of its supposed allies, even for industrial espionage. If the US says "every US company must give over european data to the government", then at some point europeans have to say "US companies can't have european data".

rebelde 5y ago
What about Hungarian services? Hungary is in the EU.

RIMR 5y ago

Taking this to the logical conclusion: This is the fault of US Intelligence Services for overreaching to the point where it impacts general trust in US companies, and should be solidly blamed on them for being legitimately untrustworthy and exploitive.