3 ms·

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 justi

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."

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."