3 ms·

These laws have been created for good reasons, and US tech companies have had free reign to trample on people's privacy rights for a very long time. If a compa

These laws have been created for good reasons, and US tech companies have had free reign to trample on people's privacy rights for a very long time. If a company acts in a honorable way, there's nothing to fear and they can easily do business world wide. It's when companies do things that are shady and should've been outlawed from the start that they run into trouble. The main issue here is that the US has the least restrictive laws and allows its citizens' privacy to be grossly invaded, which means these companies now feel like they're being unnecessarily restricted. If the US had stricter laws, this would be a non-issue and you wouldn't hear anyone about it. It's all very myopic and US-centered to focus on the company's freedom to do as it pleases. What about the users' freedom to live without being spied upon? Free market rules don't apply - the network effects are too big to really say "you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like it". Also it's a transparency issue - it's too hard to tell from the outside how your data will be handled to make an informed decision about what companies to deal with. Especially because all of them treat your data like they own it, as a cash cow.

pembrook 2y ago
> It's all very myopic and US-centered to focus on the company's freedom to do as it pleases. The Dutch DPA is not accusing Uber of doing anything nefarious. They are mad that Uber, as an American company, can be compelled by the US government to hand over data. Ultimately, their beef is not with US companies, it’s with the US government. This is all wildly ironic because the EU is constantly trying to spy on their own citizens and undermine encryption. The EU is just upset that the US is able to do it instead of them. This is just companies being caught in a geopolitical spat between competing powers. The EU keeps moving the goalposts on what constitutes “safe” transfers (we’re on the 5th round of this). So there’s no way for companies to be compliant unless the US government changes its laws. So right now it’s just a lever to extract money from US corporations via never ending fines. The US government and the EU need to sort this out. Blaming the companies shows a total lack of understanding of the real situation. I get that we all hate big tech now, but there’s literally no way to comply in good faith with these competing EU cash grabs over the shifting specifics of how you can transfer data to US servers.
- troupo 2y ago
  "These cannibals keep eating people because their country's laws allow it. It's not right to blame the cannibals, the governments should figure it out."
  - pembrook 2y ago
    There is no actual OR theoretical harm from the companies. Only theoretical harm in the event the US government decides to spy on an EU citizen. The correct analogy: “There’s cannibals in both countries governments. Country A claims Uber hasn’t done enough to protect from Country B’s government cannibals. This ignores the shifting rules around proper data transfers to the US, but you wanted a pithy logical fallacy, so there you go.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    Except in this case people love being eaten and keep volunteering to be eaten by the cannibals.
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Since the company getting fined is also the company that spied on police car positions in the US I don't think that this type of shady behaviour helped in showing good faith in this case.
- akie 2y ago
  That's a nonsensical load of hyperbole, pardon my French. It's not particularly difficult to be careful with personal data, it's just inconvenient and prevents all kinds of uses that can make you money - which is why US corporations would prefer to not implement it. But if you want to do business in the EU, you need to play by their rules. Simple.
  - pembrook 2y ago
    I have soberly explained the actual situation to you. I know it’s impossible to have a rational conversation about privacy on HN and my comments go against the narrative everyone has stuck in their heads here, but I urge you to look further into this issue. This is an ongoing geopolitical spat and compliance in good faith is currently impossible. I have spoken to many lawyers about this. Any US company operating in the EU is at risk of constant fines no matter what you do, due to this geopolitical issue.
wyager 2y ago
I'm not going to address your comment at the object level; I'm just going to point out that you've missed the point of my comment entirely. My comment is descriptive (the internet is going to become nationally siloed) not normative (a moral judgement on the conditions that are leading to this state of affairs).
muaytimbo 2y ago
"What about the users' freedom to live without being spied upon?" Pretty simple, don't use Uber.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Facebook showed this to be a stupid premise. You don't have to use a company to "interact with it" on the internet.

pembrook 2y ago

> It's all very myopic and US-centered to focus on the company's freedom to do as it pleases. The Dutch DPA is not accusing Uber of doing anything nefarious. They are mad that Uber, as an American company, can be compelled by the US government to hand over data. Ultimately, their beef is not with US companies, it’s with the US government. This is all wildly ironic because the EU is constantly trying to spy on their own citizens and undermine encryption. The EU is just upset that the US is able to do it instead of them. This is just companies being caught in a geopolitical spat between competing powers. The EU keeps moving the goalposts on what constitutes “safe” transfers (we’re on the 5th round of this). So there’s no way for companies to be compliant unless the US government changes its laws. So right now it’s just a lever to extract money from US corporations via never ending fines. The US government and the EU need to sort this out. Blaming the companies shows a total lack of understanding of the real situation. I get that we all hate big tech now, but there’s literally no way to comply in good faith with these competing EU cash grabs over the shifting specifics of how you can transfer data to US servers.

troupo 2y ago
"These cannibals keep eating people because their country's laws allow it. It's not right to blame the cannibals, the governments should figure it out."
- pembrook 2y ago
  There is no actual OR theoretical harm from the companies. Only theoretical harm in the event the US government decides to spy on an EU citizen. The correct analogy: “There’s cannibals in both countries governments. Country A claims Uber hasn’t done enough to protect from Country B’s government cannibals. This ignores the shifting rules around proper data transfers to the US, but you wanted a pithy logical fallacy, so there you go.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  Except in this case people love being eaten and keep volunteering to be eaten by the cannibals.
LunaSea 2y ago
Since the company getting fined is also the company that spied on police car positions in the US I don't think that this type of shady behaviour helped in showing good faith in this case.
akie 2y ago
That's a nonsensical load of hyperbole, pardon my French. It's not particularly difficult to be careful with personal data, it's just inconvenient and prevents all kinds of uses that can make you money - which is why US corporations would prefer to not implement it. But if you want to do business in the EU, you need to play by their rules. Simple.
- pembrook 2y ago
  I have soberly explained the actual situation to you. I know it’s impossible to have a rational conversation about privacy on HN and my comments go against the narrative everyone has stuck in their heads here, but I urge you to look further into this issue. This is an ongoing geopolitical spat and compliance in good faith is currently impossible. I have spoken to many lawyers about this. Any US company operating in the EU is at risk of constant fines no matter what you do, due to this geopolitical issue.

wyager 2y ago

I'm not going to address your comment at the object level; I'm just going to point out that you've missed the point of my comment entirely. My comment is descriptive (the internet is going to become nationally siloed) not normative (a moral judgement on the conditions that are leading to this state of affairs).

muaytimbo 2y ago

"What about the users' freedom to live without being spied upon?" Pretty simple, don't use Uber.

mrguyorama 2y ago
Facebook showed this to be a stupid premise. You don't have to use a company to "interact with it" on the internet.