8 ms·

Related: "IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT" (white house, feb 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanc

by vincvinc 11mo ago

Related: "IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT" (white house, feb 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo... Microsoft admits in French court it can't keep EU data safe from US authorities (jul 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45822902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45822902

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
yupyupyups 11mo ago
>Microsoft admits in French court it can't keep EU data safe from US authorities Snowden leaked that fact before Microsoft made the admission. But it's good that it's coming from them officially nonetheless.
- tokai 11mo ago
  It kind felt like the ramifications of Snowden's leak were so wast that everyone just chose to forget about it.
  - realusername 11mo ago
    There's definitely a political game of pretending that the US clouds are somehow compatible with GDPR.
    - jojobas 11mo ago
      They are most likely compatible until a national security letter arrives. An American company then has to choose which law to comply with, and it's an easy choice.
      - immibis 11mo ago
        That's what makes them incompatible. But companies can be a lot shadier than we give them credit for. Like, remember that "wink payment" contract between Google and Israel? If Google knew what they were doing, they accepted the contract to do the illegal thing, so they'd sell their product and get money, but they were planning to simply not do the illegal thing, breaking the contract (the customer would never know and if they somehow did, you can't stop using a cloud on a dime) but not breaking any laws. If Microsoft knows what they're doing, they'll accept contracts from EU customers that say "we will never give your data to US authorities", they break it immediately, don't tell the customer and the customer never finds out. Alternatively, they can give the US government a bunch of nothing, in order to comply with the EU customer contract, and pretend this is all the data the customer had on their account. I doubt this will happen though.
    - 1718627440 11mo ago
      There were ruled incompatible every time, this was brought to the courts.
  - bayindirh 11mo ago
    IIUC Snowden sent complete trove to two publications only, and one of the computers containing the trove is destroyed through and through, disabling that publication for Snowden leaks. Moreover, again as I understand, after a certain point the leaks are stopped, because the message was sent, and people now know the most important bits behind the curtain.
- KaiserPro 11mo ago
  Theres a difference between as an intelligence organisation having access to data, and "someone in power is angry because they watched a TV advert, I want to see what they know" but, your over all picture is still, sadly correct.
  - pureagave 11mo ago
    For most of my life I also used to think there was a difference between the two. But now I realized they are actually just the same.
    - shreddit 11mo ago
      They couldn’t be more different. One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone. The other one will do it in public because he can and doesn’t like your name.
      - statguy 11mo ago
        does it matter if you are the one on the receiving end?
      - Waterluvian 11mo ago
        Which of these is meant to represent the current regime in power in the U.S.?
      - lmm 11mo ago
        > One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone. When it's secret, how can you ever check? Even if it was just because the person on top or in the middle had a personal judge, they'll always say it was for legitimate spying purposes and no-one has any way to call them out.
    - KaiserPro 11mo ago
      I understand the disillusionment. The gutting of the US machinery of state is disheartening to see.
whatever1 11mo ago
I don’t understand why this is the case though. Could MS create a new EU based company in which it just owns shares ? Or is the US cloud act so wide that they can demand data from all the companies a us based company has equity in?
- NoboruWataya 11mo ago
  MSFT already operates in Europe via subsidiaries for a whole host of reasons. But hiving certain assets off in a subsidiary is very rarely effective to avoid laws and regulations that apply to the parent. The parent controls the subsidiary so a court or regulator having jurisdiction over the parent could order it to get what it needs from the subsidiary. This is particularly so in the US, which is kind of known for enacting overreaching extraterritorial laws.
  - whatever1 11mo ago
    So let’s say I am eu citizen I own a data center company in Brussels. I sell 1 stock to MS USA. Can they at any point demand all my data ?
    - ahi 11mo ago
      They can try, but presumably as a tiny shareholder you would tell them to go f themselves. Subsidiaries don't have that luxury.
    - danielheath 11mo ago
      The laws I have read used the term “effective control”; if a shareholder is able to control the org (eg can replace the CEO or board), they are obliged to comply with government orders regarding that org.
  - skissane 11mo ago
    > The parent controls the subsidiary so a court or regulator having jurisdiction over the parent could order it to get what it needs from the subsidiary. But what if the parent’s jurisdiction orders the parent to order the subsidiary to do something illegal in the subsidiary’s jurisdiction? If local management obey the order, they risk being prosecuted by their jurisdiction’s authorities-so they’ll likely refuse. What is the parent going to do then? Fire them? But will any replacement act any differently? “Is this job worth going to prison over?” Most people answer “no”, and people who answer “yes” won’t last, because you can’t run a subsidiary from a prison cell. I think the real issue here is that the US gets away with it because the EU is still so dependent on the US (see NATO) they can’t push back fully, at some point a political calculation takes over. So it could be that the US parent orders the subsidiary to do something illegal under EU law, and then the EU authorities choose to ignore it.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

yupyupyups 11mo ago

>Microsoft admits in French court it can't keep EU data safe from US authorities Snowden leaked that fact before Microsoft made the admission. But it's good that it's coming from them officially nonetheless.

tokai 11mo ago
It kind felt like the ramifications of Snowden's leak were so wast that everyone just chose to forget about it.
- realusername 11mo ago
  There's definitely a political game of pretending that the US clouds are somehow compatible with GDPR.
  - jojobas 11mo ago
    They are most likely compatible until a national security letter arrives. An American company then has to choose which law to comply with, and it's an easy choice.
    - immibis 11mo ago
      That's what makes them incompatible. But companies can be a lot shadier than we give them credit for. Like, remember that "wink payment" contract between Google and Israel? If Google knew what they were doing, they accepted the contract to do the illegal thing, so they'd sell their product and get money, but they were planning to simply not do the illegal thing, breaking the contract (the customer would never know and if they somehow did, you can't stop using a cloud on a dime) but not breaking any laws. If Microsoft knows what they're doing, they'll accept contracts from EU customers that say "we will never give your data to US authorities", they break it immediately, don't tell the customer and the customer never finds out. Alternatively, they can give the US government a bunch of nothing, in order to comply with the EU customer contract, and pretend this is all the data the customer had on their account. I doubt this will happen though.
  - 1718627440 11mo ago
    There were ruled incompatible every time, this was brought to the courts.
- bayindirh 11mo ago
  IIUC Snowden sent complete trove to two publications only, and one of the computers containing the trove is destroyed through and through, disabling that publication for Snowden leaks. Moreover, again as I understand, after a certain point the leaks are stopped, because the message was sent, and people now know the most important bits behind the curtain.
KaiserPro 11mo ago
Theres a difference between as an intelligence organisation having access to data, and "someone in power is angry because they watched a TV advert, I want to see what they know" but, your over all picture is still, sadly correct.
- pureagave 11mo ago
  For most of my life I also used to think there was a difference between the two. But now I realized they are actually just the same.
  - shreddit 11mo ago
    They couldn’t be more different. One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone. The other one will do it in public because he can and doesn’t like your name.
    - statguy 11mo ago
      does it matter if you are the one on the receiving end?
    - Waterluvian 11mo ago
      Which of these is meant to represent the current regime in power in the U.S.?
    - lmm 11mo ago
      > One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone. When it's secret, how can you ever check? Even if it was just because the person on top or in the middle had a personal judge, they'll always say it was for legitimate spying purposes and no-one has any way to call them out.
  - KaiserPro 11mo ago
    I understand the disillusionment. The gutting of the US machinery of state is disheartening to see.

whatever1 11mo ago

I don’t understand why this is the case though. Could MS create a new EU based company in which it just owns shares ? Or is the US cloud act so wide that they can demand data from all the companies a us based company has equity in?

NoboruWataya 11mo ago
MSFT already operates in Europe via subsidiaries for a whole host of reasons. But hiving certain assets off in a subsidiary is very rarely effective to avoid laws and regulations that apply to the parent. The parent controls the subsidiary so a court or regulator having jurisdiction over the parent could order it to get what it needs from the subsidiary. This is particularly so in the US, which is kind of known for enacting overreaching extraterritorial laws.
- whatever1 11mo ago
  So let’s say I am eu citizen I own a data center company in Brussels. I sell 1 stock to MS USA. Can they at any point demand all my data ?
  - ahi 11mo ago
    They can try, but presumably as a tiny shareholder you would tell them to go f themselves. Subsidiaries don't have that luxury.
  - danielheath 11mo ago
    The laws I have read used the term “effective control”; if a shareholder is able to control the org (eg can replace the CEO or board), they are obliged to comply with government orders regarding that org.
- skissane 11mo ago
  > The parent controls the subsidiary so a court or regulator having jurisdiction over the parent could order it to get what it needs from the subsidiary. But what if the parent’s jurisdiction orders the parent to order the subsidiary to do something illegal in the subsidiary’s jurisdiction? If local management obey the order, they risk being prosecuted by their jurisdiction’s authorities-so they’ll likely refuse. What is the parent going to do then? Fire them? But will any replacement act any differently? “Is this job worth going to prison over?” Most people answer “no”, and people who answer “yes” won’t last, because you can’t run a subsidiary from a prison cell. I think the real issue here is that the US gets away with it because the EU is still so dependent on the US (see NATO) they can’t push back fully, at some point a political calculation takes over. So it could be that the US parent orders the subsidiary to do something illegal under EU law, and then the EU authorities choose to ignore it.