3 ms·

What a humiliating outcome for the EU. Big on words, dwarf in actions. The US is unlikely to ever properly regulate its treasured "big tech". As the footprint

What a humiliating outcome for the EU. Big on words, dwarf in actions. The US is unlikely to ever properly regulate its treasured "big tech". As the footprint of digital services on our lives keeps increasing the EU must decide what sort of society and economy it really is.

Nasrudith 3y ago
Unlikely to regulate? This is the regulation.
- floomk 3y ago
  Hardly.
jsnell 3y ago
The problem with the data transfer was never the (lack of) regulation of big tech. If a company doesn't have sufficient privacy safeguards and controls for the data, it'd be a problem no matter where the data is stored. And the EU is perfectly capable and willing to fine them for billions or more for it. The problem was with insufficient safeguards for data requests by the US government -- law enforcement and spy agencies. That's supposedly been addressed by the Biden executive order, but we'll see if the CJEU actually buys that argument.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  I'm surprised the EU was comfortable with an executive EO instead of, say, a treaty. They do know that (excepting special circumstances like insufficient justification) an EO can usually be overturned with minimal oversight by the next administration, right?
  - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
    Statutes can be overturned too. It seems reasonable to bet that a future administration won’t want to invite the drama; if they do, the EU has revoked the agreement once so they’d presumably be willing to do it again.
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      Nah, the Court vs the Commission. Like, the Commission are really unlikely to revoke this even if (for example) DJ Trump returns and revokes this order. The Court almost certainly would, but that would take time.
  - nani8ot 3y ago
    There were multiple attempts to make it legal for US companies to transfer and process EU data. They were all overturned in court after a few years because US surveillance law is incompatible with basic rights EU citizens have. So my layman believe is that they don't need a treaty, since it will probably be overturned anyway.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    > I'm surprised the EU was comfortable with an executive EO instead of, say, a treaty. Especially because it's going to be absolutely meaningless. Administration opinion since Bush, Jr. has been that no foreigner has any rights an American is bound to respect, unless they're on American soil, which requires a handful of courtesies. They can announce this policy with all pomp and circumstance and on the same day have the Attorney General write a secret brief explaining his theory that it doesn't bind the government in any way, which becomes secret law. Royal pronouncements and secret laws. What a democracy. ----- edit: they literally dragged out Eric Holder the other day to complain that a court order barring intelligence agencies from backchannel communications with social networks was going to cause terrorist attacks and child molestation. The guy who coined "too big to fail" but wasn't saying it sarcastically, and who admitted that his legal opinion on due process in the case of the assassination without trial of American citizens was that whatever process they used to decide what they would do was "due process."
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
> the EU must decide what sort of society and economy it really is It already made that decision in the first half of the 20th century. If you haven't heard, it decided to be a capitalist society. Nothing surprising here.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > it decided to be a capitalist society There are many different kinds of capitalism, some mostly good and some mostly bad, so just saying "it decided to be a capitalist society" lacks sufficient specificity. Also, capitalism is an economic system, so it's leaving out the "sort of society" part.
  - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
    > There are many different kinds of capitalism No, there isn't. There are merely different stages and the order they come in may vary ever so slightly as they affect one another. Over time, capital always accumulates, exploitation of the working class always tends to increase, and the rate of profit always tends to decrease.
scarface_74 3y ago
Yes because the EU is very concerned about the US snooping on private data. It wants to be the only place where they can snoop on their own citizens https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-privacy-endangering-encryption/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-priv...
- cccbbbaaa 3y ago
  https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-watchdog-online-child-abuse-draft-law-creates-illusion-of-legality/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-wat...
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago
  Eu can do wtf it wants...In the EU. I can have an impact on that (however minimal, for now). But sending my info to the states - fuck that. Also...which state? Each one has different rules. I do hope the agreement is reciprocated: US people can have their data sent to "Europe". There's a gig difference between The Netherlands and Romania. Actually, no there's not.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Yeah see how that works. Not enough people care to make that a single issue for voting.
collegeburner 3y ago
funny, i see it as the opposite. why are we helping the europeans enforce european stuff? their rules ought to carry no force whatsoever here. we should be pushing back against foreigners legislating over American companies especially when some nation's laws attempt to govern our companies' behavior outside that nation.
- kyboren 3y ago
  Because without these repeated fig leaves, trans-Atlantic data transfers will be totally prohibited. This carries the risk of losing the entire EU market, and further, the rise of actual competitors in the EU. Can't have that. Gotta keep the EU dependent on US tech. Better make sure America retains tech dominance over Europe, and can keep raiding their tech talent with the lure of high compensation and global impact unavailable in the EU. In all seriousness, the trans-Atlantic tech trade seems like a vaguely mercantilist colonialist system: Raw materials (skilled labor) flow in, finished goods (tech services) flow out.
- nologic01 3y ago
  Its touching that you are concerned about the fair treatment of a handful of overbearing oligopolies that like to "move fast and break things". You obviously have no clue what surveilance means and where it can lead. People like you explain the shambles that is the US political and regulatory system. Allow others to be concerned about having any dependency on it and not making naive assumptions about how it might evolve.
dathinab 3y ago
No not really, if you look at the history of GDPR and EU it's very very clear that it was never intended to prevent data-transfer to the US, as long as the US companies comply with GDPR. And that's what the outcome here is: data can be transferred to US companies which legally binding commit to comply with GDPR. What was all the back and force about was that due to various US laws suing parties argued that US companies can not comply with GDPR even if they legaly binding commit to do so. Various courts ruled that that is indeed true. Now again regulator have found another way to argue "it's legal like intended" which required some concessions from the US. We will see if that way, like some previously ways, will be shut down by courts.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Nasrudith 3y ago

Unlikely to regulate? This is the regulation.

floomk 3y ago
Hardly.

jsnell 3y ago

The problem with the data transfer was never the (lack of) regulation of big tech. If a company doesn't have sufficient privacy safeguards and controls for the data, it'd be a problem no matter where the data is stored. And the EU is perfectly capable and willing to fine them for billions or more for it. The problem was with insufficient safeguards for data requests by the US government -- law enforcement and spy agencies. That's supposedly been addressed by the Biden executive order, but we'll see if the CJEU actually buys that argument.

shadowgovt 3y ago
I'm surprised the EU was comfortable with an executive EO instead of, say, a treaty. They do know that (excepting special circumstances like insufficient justification) an EO can usually be overturned with minimal oversight by the next administration, right?
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  Statutes can be overturned too. It seems reasonable to bet that a future administration won’t want to invite the drama; if they do, the EU has revoked the agreement once so they’d presumably be willing to do it again.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Nah, the Court vs the Commission. Like, the Commission are really unlikely to revoke this even if (for example) DJ Trump returns and revokes this order. The Court almost certainly would, but that would take time.
- nani8ot 3y ago
  There were multiple attempts to make it legal for US companies to transfer and process EU data. They were all overturned in court after a few years because US surveillance law is incompatible with basic rights EU citizens have. So my layman believe is that they don't need a treaty, since it will probably be overturned anyway.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > I'm surprised the EU was comfortable with an executive EO instead of, say, a treaty. Especially because it's going to be absolutely meaningless. Administration opinion since Bush, Jr. has been that no foreigner has any rights an American is bound to respect, unless they're on American soil, which requires a handful of courtesies. They can announce this policy with all pomp and circumstance and on the same day have the Attorney General write a secret brief explaining his theory that it doesn't bind the government in any way, which becomes secret law. Royal pronouncements and secret laws. What a democracy. ----- edit: they literally dragged out Eric Holder the other day to complain that a court order barring intelligence agencies from backchannel communications with social networks was going to cause terrorist attacks and child molestation. The guy who coined "too big to fail" but wasn't saying it sarcastically, and who admitted that his legal opinion on due process in the case of the assassination without trial of American citizens was that whatever process they used to decide what they would do was "due process."

111111IIIIIII 3y ago

> the EU must decide what sort of society and economy it really is It already made that decision in the first half of the 20th century. If you haven't heard, it decided to be a capitalist society. Nothing surprising here.

JohnFen 3y ago
> it decided to be a capitalist society There are many different kinds of capitalism, some mostly good and some mostly bad, so just saying "it decided to be a capitalist society" lacks sufficient specificity. Also, capitalism is an economic system, so it's leaving out the "sort of society" part.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  > There are many different kinds of capitalism No, there isn't. There are merely different stages and the order they come in may vary ever so slightly as they affect one another. Over time, capital always accumulates, exploitation of the working class always tends to increase, and the rate of profit always tends to decrease.

scarface_74 3y ago

Yes because the EU is very concerned about the US snooping on private data. It wants to be the only place where they can snoop on their own citizens https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-privacy-endangering-encryption/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-priv...

cccbbbaaa 3y ago
https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-watchdog-online-child-abuse-draft-law-creates-illusion-of-legality/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-wat...
Ylpertnodi 3y ago
Eu can do wtf it wants...In the EU. I can have an impact on that (however minimal, for now). But sending my info to the states - fuck that. Also...which state? Each one has different rules. I do hope the agreement is reciprocated: US people can have their data sent to "Europe". There's a gig difference between The Netherlands and Romania. Actually, no there's not.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Yeah see how that works. Not enough people care to make that a single issue for voting.

collegeburner 3y ago

funny, i see it as the opposite. why are we helping the europeans enforce european stuff? their rules ought to carry no force whatsoever here. we should be pushing back against foreigners legislating over American companies especially when some nation's laws attempt to govern our companies' behavior outside that nation.

kyboren 3y ago
Because without these repeated fig leaves, trans-Atlantic data transfers will be totally prohibited. This carries the risk of losing the entire EU market, and further, the rise of actual competitors in the EU. Can't have that. Gotta keep the EU dependent on US tech. Better make sure America retains tech dominance over Europe, and can keep raiding their tech talent with the lure of high compensation and global impact unavailable in the EU. In all seriousness, the trans-Atlantic tech trade seems like a vaguely mercantilist colonialist system: Raw materials (skilled labor) flow in, finished goods (tech services) flow out.
nologic01 3y ago
Its touching that you are concerned about the fair treatment of a handful of overbearing oligopolies that like to "move fast and break things". You obviously have no clue what surveilance means and where it can lead. People like you explain the shambles that is the US political and regulatory system. Allow others to be concerned about having any dependency on it and not making naive assumptions about how it might evolve.

dathinab 3y ago

No not really, if you look at the history of GDPR and EU it's very very clear that it was never intended to prevent data-transfer to the US, as long as the US companies comply with GDPR. And that's what the outcome here is: data can be transferred to US companies which legally binding commit to comply with GDPR. What was all the back and force about was that due to various US laws suing parties argued that US companies can not comply with GDPR even if they legaly binding commit to do so. Various courts ruled that that is indeed true. Now again regulator have found another way to argue "it's legal like intended" which required some concessions from the US. We will see if that way, like some previously ways, will be shut down by courts.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]