4 ms·

I have personal experience of authorities in the European Union abusing GDPR laws to circumference laws on transparency. In the case I was involved with, they r

I have personal experience of authorities in the European Union abusing GDPR laws to circumference laws on transparency. In the case I was involved with, they refused to give out public documents where political parties have to list the people that receive money from them, by getting the data protection authority involved and saying it was not possible because the recipient might use an American company for backup or an American e-mail provider on their computers. All this communication of course sent to us through their Microsoft Exchange server. As with all laws in Europe, GDPR has a chief purpose to be abused by the rulers and used against the public and the public interest. That's a long standing tradition in Europe, and I feel that it's only people here that don't "get it" and actually believe the propaganda. You don't believe Apple propaganda, Monsanto propaganda, or Republican propaganda. So why swallow EU propaganda?

wildrhythms 3y ago
>they refused to give out public documents where political parties have to list the people that receive money from them So who is 'they' and what were the documents? I'm American so I'm not deeply familiar with this area.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  "They" in this case is a national authority within a EU country. They are responsible for handing out tax payer's money as subsidies to political parties, and the political parties have to declare and account for how they used this money. The authority refused to give out these declarations, saying it would break GDPR laws because they might be backed up to an American server. Of course it is blatant mis-interpretation of the law, but this is how these laws and other laws get applied in reality. Used when they benefit the rulers and ignored when they would benefit the population. In the US you don't have this kind of financing I believe, because your political parties pay for themselves by endless fundraising from their voters.
  - emayljames 3y ago
    most financing in the US for parties come from corporate donations, very much with a condition imposed by the corporation. Kind of acting like a bribe.
  - SiempreViernes 3y ago
    Do you have experience of asking for these type of funding documents before 2016? Was is much easier then? Because the argument (as you describe it) doesn't make any sense, so I would expect they already have another nonsensical interpretation of some other law at hand from before GDPR applied.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      These "data protection authorities" weren't established instantly when the law was written. It took a good few years. But yes and yes, we never had such a problem getting any public documents before they could use the data protection authority to deny giving them out. This was easy, the local politicians just had to put a crooked individual as head of that authority and that person would do their bidding. Before that they didn't have any legal basis for denying public documents, and each time they tried to do that you could threaten court and they'd bend. With a crooked data protection authority to help them, they'd have the support of the law to deny giving out any public document they didn't want to give out. Not in the field anymore, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody took the data protection authority to court over this in the near future.
      - SiempreViernes 3y ago
        Can you specify which jurisdiction you are talking about? I find it very surprising that the politicians could put in corrupt heads of agencies but not prevent handling out incriminating documents some other ways, sounds like the product of very interesting historical circumstances.
        carlosjobim 3y ago
        There's probably nothing outright incriminating in those documents, rather that the political party or parties were using their subsidy money to pay for services rendered from companies owned by the party leadership – which is 100% legal, but not very pretty in the public eye. I don't find it very surprising that they could and did use the GDPR "loophole" to close the public sector from public insight. Before GDPR there were very clear laws of transparency making sure that they could not deny giving out public documents. And if they did, they'd be taken to court and always loose. They would still try denying some public documents and threatening court would work against that. With a data protection authority on their side, they finally got the law on their side, using tactics such as saying that there is a risk that these documents end up on an American server. While at the same time using Microsoft services and American servers themselves. Which is the subject of the OP article. Appointing a crooked head of a data protection authority or any authority is easy and it is legal. Circumventing laws is not that easy. But it is easier when you have more laws that are more open for interpretation. The right thing to do would have been to make transparency laws more powerful than GDPR laws, because it was obvious that they would be abused. Now the EU has GDPR laws enforced on a union-wide basis, but not wholesome transparency laws enforced on a union-wide basis.
yoavm 3y ago
> You don't believe Apple propaganda, Monsanto propaganda, or Republican propaganda. So why swallow EU propaganda? Because I vote for my EU representatives. Sure one doesn't have to "believe" everything, but not believing _anyone_ is also a dangerous slippery ride down the conspiracy lane.
- belter 3y ago
  You don't vote for the European Commission....
  - bondant 3y ago
    But you vote for someone who is going to nominate a commissioner. So it is just indirect election.
    - blibble 3y ago
      for the commision you vote for someone who votes for someone who votes for someone who appoints commissioners
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
caoilte 3y ago
Those are false equivalencies. The EU bureaucracy is a mess of competing factions. It isn't a corporation or a political party. A better analogy would be a US Government department breaking a law. Ideally there are are legal avenues for redress in your situation. If there are not, that is more likely to be the problem than a conspiracy of propaganda.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I agree with you, but this is what happens in reality. Laws and regulations get abused more than they get used, unless they are very well written. The minimum would be to require the EU itself to not use Microsoft 365 and other services that they have explicitly tried to counteract with their laws. Change the word "propaganda" to "marketing", if it is offensive to you.
troupo 3y ago
> As with all laws in Europe, GDPR has a chief purpose to be abused by the rulers and used against the public and the public interest. As with all gross generalizations and simplifications this is false. As in: the issue is more complex that you make it out to be
Propelloni 3y ago
Look, I understand you have been burned, but to jump from your anecdotal "authorities in the EU abusing GDPR" to a universal "[a]s with all laws in Europe, GDPR has a chief purpose to be abused by the rulers" is quite a stretch. You are free to believe what you want but it is getting old to say that people who do not agree with you are falling for some ruse. Maybe they know something you don't?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I've never said that people not agreeing with me are falling for some ruse. With "swallowing propaganda" I don't think anybody swallows it whole, just that people are not be sceptical enough regarding one huge organisation like the EU, while having no problem being sceptical on the other huge organisations I mentioned. But you know what? Note taken and thanks.

wildrhythms 3y ago

>they refused to give out public documents where political parties have to list the people that receive money from them So who is 'they' and what were the documents? I'm American so I'm not deeply familiar with this area.

carlosjobim 3y ago
"They" in this case is a national authority within a EU country. They are responsible for handing out tax payer's money as subsidies to political parties, and the political parties have to declare and account for how they used this money. The authority refused to give out these declarations, saying it would break GDPR laws because they might be backed up to an American server. Of course it is blatant mis-interpretation of the law, but this is how these laws and other laws get applied in reality. Used when they benefit the rulers and ignored when they would benefit the population. In the US you don't have this kind of financing I believe, because your political parties pay for themselves by endless fundraising from their voters.
- emayljames 3y ago
  most financing in the US for parties come from corporate donations, very much with a condition imposed by the corporation. Kind of acting like a bribe.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Do you have experience of asking for these type of funding documents before 2016? Was is much easier then? Because the argument (as you describe it) doesn't make any sense, so I would expect they already have another nonsensical interpretation of some other law at hand from before GDPR applied.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    These "data protection authorities" weren't established instantly when the law was written. It took a good few years. But yes and yes, we never had such a problem getting any public documents before they could use the data protection authority to deny giving them out. This was easy, the local politicians just had to put a crooked individual as head of that authority and that person would do their bidding. Before that they didn't have any legal basis for denying public documents, and each time they tried to do that you could threaten court and they'd bend. With a crooked data protection authority to help them, they'd have the support of the law to deny giving out any public document they didn't want to give out. Not in the field anymore, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody took the data protection authority to court over this in the near future.
    - SiempreViernes 3y ago
      Can you specify which jurisdiction you are talking about? I find it very surprising that the politicians could put in corrupt heads of agencies but not prevent handling out incriminating documents some other ways, sounds like the product of very interesting historical circumstances.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        There's probably nothing outright incriminating in those documents, rather that the political party or parties were using their subsidy money to pay for services rendered from companies owned by the party leadership – which is 100% legal, but not very pretty in the public eye. I don't find it very surprising that they could and did use the GDPR "loophole" to close the public sector from public insight. Before GDPR there were very clear laws of transparency making sure that they could not deny giving out public documents. And if they did, they'd be taken to court and always loose. They would still try denying some public documents and threatening court would work against that. With a data protection authority on their side, they finally got the law on their side, using tactics such as saying that there is a risk that these documents end up on an American server. While at the same time using Microsoft services and American servers themselves. Which is the subject of the OP article. Appointing a crooked head of a data protection authority or any authority is easy and it is legal. Circumventing laws is not that easy. But it is easier when you have more laws that are more open for interpretation. The right thing to do would have been to make transparency laws more powerful than GDPR laws, because it was obvious that they would be abused. Now the EU has GDPR laws enforced on a union-wide basis, but not wholesome transparency laws enforced on a union-wide basis.

yoavm 3y ago

> You don't believe Apple propaganda, Monsanto propaganda, or Republican propaganda. So why swallow EU propaganda? Because I vote for my EU representatives. Sure one doesn't have to "believe" everything, but not believing _anyone_ is also a dangerous slippery ride down the conspiracy lane.

belter 3y ago
You don't vote for the European Commission....
- bondant 3y ago
  But you vote for someone who is going to nominate a commissioner. So it is just indirect election.
  - blibble 3y ago
    for the commision you vote for someone who votes for someone who votes for someone who appoints commissioners
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

caoilte 3y ago

Those are false equivalencies. The EU bureaucracy is a mess of competing factions. It isn't a corporation or a political party. A better analogy would be a US Government department breaking a law. Ideally there are are legal avenues for redress in your situation. If there are not, that is more likely to be the problem than a conspiracy of propaganda.

carlosjobim 3y ago
I agree with you, but this is what happens in reality. Laws and regulations get abused more than they get used, unless they are very well written. The minimum would be to require the EU itself to not use Microsoft 365 and other services that they have explicitly tried to counteract with their laws. Change the word "propaganda" to "marketing", if it is offensive to you.

troupo 3y ago

> As with all laws in Europe, GDPR has a chief purpose to be abused by the rulers and used against the public and the public interest. As with all gross generalizations and simplifications this is false. As in: the issue is more complex that you make it out to be

Propelloni 3y ago

Look, I understand you have been burned, but to jump from your anecdotal "authorities in the EU abusing GDPR" to a universal "[a]s with all laws in Europe, GDPR has a chief purpose to be abused by the rulers" is quite a stretch. You are free to believe what you want but it is getting old to say that people who do not agree with you are falling for some ruse. Maybe they know something you don't?

carlosjobim 3y ago
I've never said that people not agreeing with me are falling for some ruse. With "swallowing propaganda" I don't think anybody swallows it whole, just that people are not be sceptical enough regarding one huge organisation like the EU, while having no problem being sceptical on the other huge organisations I mentioned. But you know what? Note taken and thanks.