5 ms·

It's not even just data stored on US servers. According to the CLOUD Act, any data stored by a US company, regardless of location, can be demanded by any author

It's not even just data stored on US servers. According to the CLOUD Act, any data stored by a US company, regardless of location, can be demanded by any authority in the US. No sovereign nation should use US companies for data storage or processing. Period. The attempts to shift to open source or non-US services are inevitably hobbled by US companies lobbying (read: bribing) politicians.

tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
> No sovereign nation should use US companies for data storage or processing. Period. So what is Europe supposed to do just stop pretending to be sovereign?
- roysting 8mo ago
  I am not sure if you meant to say what you said. By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign. I think it is what they are attempting to do at the moment, "stop pretending to be sovereign" and actually BE sovereign. At least that seems to be the claimed attempt. If anyone is not sure why I would say that Europe is not sovereign, I will answer that question if you ask, but considering the current state of things and even just this discussion about data sovereignty and other related topics about using and deploying European technologies; I suspect most, if not all have a sense that Europe is in fact not sovereign... and that's without even pointing out huge elephants in the room like the 275 US military installations across Europe, and not even to touch on the fact that NATO is really just ** pulls curtain back ** SURPRISE! ... America, Europe Division.
  - bulbar 8mo ago
    275 US military installations across Europe that are not prepared or equipped to fight a conflict against the nation's military that host them.
    - dmoy 8mo ago
      I don't think GP was implying anything about US military fighting against Europe? Just that having another country's military all up inside your country is weird from a sovereignty perspective.
    - cgio 8mo ago
      US abducted the leader of a sovereign in a night without having any military installations in his country. Sovereignty is very brittle in this context. I am sure an unprepared installation can still be useful if need be. But in any case no need in sight. Europe is not sovereign because it’s not a nation, it’s a loose union with very limited actual integration outside the integration required to facilitate easier trading from strong industrial economies to their poor neighbours. There is nothing to be concerned about in this space for the US until someone in Europe (France or Germany) actually becomes more dangerous to Europe than the US.
  - victorbjorklund 8mo ago
    The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? Maybe. But how many millions dead Americans? US lost in Afghanistan and there they just fought terrorists.
    - beachy 8mo ago
      The US (like any country) struggles in asymmetrical/guerilla warfare. It always devolves to the famous statement by a US officer during the Vietnam war that “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.” If the gloves were off then the equation would be different. A fight with the rest of NATO would be conventional warfare where the US has a giant advantage.
      - watwut 8mo ago
        USA would eventually loose, because it generally looses wars in the long term. But Europeans would suffer more while Americans would consider themselves the real victims.
        x______________ 8mo ago
        The ones that win wars are those who profit from conflict, not those who are victorious on the battlefield.
      - ben_w 8mo ago
        > A fight with the rest of NATO would be conventional warfare where the US has a giant advantage. Given NATO contains three nuclear powers, a full on fight between the US and the rest of NATO would be an "everyone loses" scenario. Even if the US did a first-strike that somehow eliminated all the French and British nuclear submarines, simply losing the EU as customers and suppliers would likely double US unemployment and push inflation to 10%/year for the next decade (hard to be sure though, see Covid influence on supply chains). Actually getting hit back by retaliatory strikes by either France or the UK independently would be in the order of multiples of US annual GDP in physical damage. France has enough that even if 80% of their missiles were stopped, they'd still be able to hit every US state capital (though why would anyone care to attack Alaska or Hawaii if they're nuking all the rest?) As per estimate from 2005, even just a single 100 kT nuke in the right place would have an impact equivalent to the US GDP at the time: The results of our analysis are shown in Figure 4. As anticipated, the economic consequences are highest for the largest nuclear weapon yield and the most conservative cleanup level. New York City nets the highest economic damage across the cleanup spectrum, because of its dense population and high value real estate. Note that the economic consequences for New York City across almost every cleanup level meet or exceed $10 trillion, which is roughly equivalent to the annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the U.S. economy. - Economic consequences of a rad/nuc attack: cleanup standards significantly affect cost, page 9, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML11355A226.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML11355A226.pdf
  - watwut 8mo ago
    > By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign. The ideology that claims no one except the biggest military is sovereign ... is fascism.
- halJordan 8mo ago
  What? They're supposed to arrest people that break their laws. Why is this a hard step to think of?
socalgal2 8mo ago
[flagged]
- cowboylowrez 8mo ago
  what we need to do is put some heavy tariffs on intercontinental packets.
- bulbar 8mo ago
  There has always been alternatives within the EU. In addition, law enforcement entities in the US and EU have always been cooperating. The internet however is not limited to US and EU. Criminals have always been using services all over the globe.
- krior 8mo ago
  Yeah, because the US can't deal with their criminals my data privacy has to be violateb by a foreign, hostile government.
- nxobject 8mo ago
  It's not clear on my end what scenario you're talking about here. Are you talking about a potential situation where a Drugs-R-Us are using (for example) an American service, but directing them to store it on EU servers? Or are you talking about Drugs-R-Us using a non-American service in general?
- victorbjorklund 8mo ago
  You think EU does not have any law enforcement?
- aucisson_masque 8mo ago
  Interpol, European authorities, international mandates, police force cooperation,...
- oblio 8mo ago
  > Then they can put all their data in EU servers and not worry US authorities can look at it even with a valid warrant and a court order. Ah, Americans. "Valid warrants and court orders" are national. Unless there are international agreements (of which there are many), whatever Bumf** PD, Oregon does should have no impact on what a Lithuanian server hosting company does. Of course, this is not how it works in real life and many non-Americans consider that abusive, and rightfully so. FYI - this kind of extra-territoriality was what started WW1. An ethnic Serb Bosnian (Gavrilo Princip) shot the Austro-Hungarian heir apparent and as a result Austria-Hungary sent Serbia an ultimatum. The ultimatum contained lots of harsh terms, which Serbia accepted, except for 1. The term they refused was to allow Austro-Hungarian police, prosecutors, judges to directly investigate, arrest, prosecute and imprison Gavrilo's possible collaborators. And the reason they refused that was because it's basically giving up sovereignty. Once you let another country send their police force investigate, arrest, prosecute and imprison whomever they want, they have full control. They can imprison your prime minister and you have no recourse except for starting a war. So Serbia accepted that if it wanted to remain independent, it would have to accept fighting a war.
pyuser583 8mo ago
European countries aren’t known for strong privacy against the state. There are exceptions, but the EU’s “privacy rights” are almost exclusively against corporations. American privacy, by contrast, is almost exclusively focused on state surveillance. There are holes, the biggest being that foreigners on foreign soil have no privacy rights. Nor do the dead. But I’m not impressed with the “rights” Europeans have against state surveillance. Europeans aren’t willing to spend the money to do massive spy programs. Ok, fine. But that’s not the same as having civil liberties opposition. Switzerland has a reputation, good and bad, for strong privacy. But that’s not the norm.
- dmix 8mo ago
  I read an article that dug into public GDPR cases, which is a surprisingly small set, and it explained they have had a near zero impact on the massive advertising and data broker industry. They mostly just have a large back log of legal cases against large US companies like Google which occasionally result in fines - but even that moves very very slowly and has little impact on their global business models. They do also occasionally charged a few smaller European companies a few grand for violations. The key thing is that companies like Google and Meta run giant ad networks, there's many thousands of companies buying ads then collecting data in their own systems and reselling it. The privacy issues of data retention on Google/Meta/etc social and SaaS platforms is something to care about but it is only a small piece of the puzzle of data privacy. Ads will remain a major business for the foreseeable future as nobody is going to pay $5/m to use Instagram with no data collection.
  - pyuser583 8mo ago
    I’ve read the GDPR has zero impacts on national security/law enforcement. It applies weakly to other state functions. I’ve also seen cases where GDPR is used against religious groups that have a strong religious justification for keeping lists of believers. Think Orthodox Jews and the Catholic Church, which regard family trees and baptismal certificates as semi-sacred. And kept on paper or scrolls. Not sure what to think about that. Regulating a sacred scroll like a database table seems wrong.

tick_tock_tick 8mo ago

> No sovereign nation should use US companies for data storage or processing. Period. So what is Europe supposed to do just stop pretending to be sovereign?

roysting 8mo ago
I am not sure if you meant to say what you said. By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign. I think it is what they are attempting to do at the moment, "stop pretending to be sovereign" and actually BE sovereign. At least that seems to be the claimed attempt. If anyone is not sure why I would say that Europe is not sovereign, I will answer that question if you ask, but considering the current state of things and even just this discussion about data sovereignty and other related topics about using and deploying European technologies; I suspect most, if not all have a sense that Europe is in fact not sovereign... and that's without even pointing out huge elephants in the room like the 275 US military installations across Europe, and not even to touch on the fact that NATO is really just ** pulls curtain back ** SURPRISE! ... America, Europe Division.
- bulbar 8mo ago
  275 US military installations across Europe that are not prepared or equipped to fight a conflict against the nation's military that host them.
  - dmoy 8mo ago
    I don't think GP was implying anything about US military fighting against Europe? Just that having another country's military all up inside your country is weird from a sovereignty perspective.
  - cgio 8mo ago
    US abducted the leader of a sovereign in a night without having any military installations in his country. Sovereignty is very brittle in this context. I am sure an unprepared installation can still be useful if need be. But in any case no need in sight. Europe is not sovereign because it’s not a nation, it’s a loose union with very limited actual integration outside the integration required to facilitate easier trading from strong industrial economies to their poor neighbours. There is nothing to be concerned about in this space for the US until someone in Europe (France or Germany) actually becomes more dangerous to Europe than the US.
- victorbjorklund 8mo ago
  The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? Maybe. But how many millions dead Americans? US lost in Afghanistan and there they just fought terrorists.
  - beachy 8mo ago
    The US (like any country) struggles in asymmetrical/guerilla warfare. It always devolves to the famous statement by a US officer during the Vietnam war that “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.” If the gloves were off then the equation would be different. A fight with the rest of NATO would be conventional warfare where the US has a giant advantage.
    - watwut 8mo ago
      USA would eventually loose, because it generally looses wars in the long term. But Europeans would suffer more while Americans would consider themselves the real victims.
      - x______________ 8mo ago
        The ones that win wars are those who profit from conflict, not those who are victorious on the battlefield.
    - ben_w 8mo ago
      > A fight with the rest of NATO would be conventional warfare where the US has a giant advantage. Given NATO contains three nuclear powers, a full on fight between the US and the rest of NATO would be an "everyone loses" scenario. Even if the US did a first-strike that somehow eliminated all the French and British nuclear submarines, simply losing the EU as customers and suppliers would likely double US unemployment and push inflation to 10%/year for the next decade (hard to be sure though, see Covid influence on supply chains). Actually getting hit back by retaliatory strikes by either France or the UK independently would be in the order of multiples of US annual GDP in physical damage. France has enough that even if 80% of their missiles were stopped, they'd still be able to hit every US state capital (though why would anyone care to attack Alaska or Hawaii if they're nuking all the rest?) As per estimate from 2005, even just a single 100 kT nuke in the right place would have an impact equivalent to the US GDP at the time: The results of our analysis are shown in Figure 4. As anticipated, the economic consequences are highest for the largest nuclear weapon yield and the most conservative cleanup level. New York City nets the highest economic damage across the cleanup spectrum, because of its dense population and high value real estate. Note that the economic consequences for New York City across almost every cleanup level meet or exceed $10 trillion, which is roughly equivalent to the annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the U.S. economy. - Economic consequences of a rad/nuc attack: cleanup standards significantly affect cost, page 9, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML11355A226.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML11355A226.pdf
- watwut 8mo ago
  > By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign. The ideology that claims no one except the biggest military is sovereign ... is fascism.
halJordan 8mo ago
What? They're supposed to arrest people that break their laws. Why is this a hard step to think of?

socalgal2 8mo ago

[flagged]

cowboylowrez 8mo ago
what we need to do is put some heavy tariffs on intercontinental packets.
bulbar 8mo ago
There has always been alternatives within the EU. In addition, law enforcement entities in the US and EU have always been cooperating. The internet however is not limited to US and EU. Criminals have always been using services all over the globe.
krior 8mo ago
Yeah, because the US can't deal with their criminals my data privacy has to be violateb by a foreign, hostile government.
nxobject 8mo ago
It's not clear on my end what scenario you're talking about here. Are you talking about a potential situation where a Drugs-R-Us are using (for example) an American service, but directing them to store it on EU servers? Or are you talking about Drugs-R-Us using a non-American service in general?
victorbjorklund 8mo ago
You think EU does not have any law enforcement?
aucisson_masque 8mo ago
Interpol, European authorities, international mandates, police force cooperation,...
oblio 8mo ago
> Then they can put all their data in EU servers and not worry US authorities can look at it even with a valid warrant and a court order. Ah, Americans. "Valid warrants and court orders" are national. Unless there are international agreements (of which there are many), whatever Bumf** PD, Oregon does should have no impact on what a Lithuanian server hosting company does. Of course, this is not how it works in real life and many non-Americans consider that abusive, and rightfully so. FYI - this kind of extra-territoriality was what started WW1. An ethnic Serb Bosnian (Gavrilo Princip) shot the Austro-Hungarian heir apparent and as a result Austria-Hungary sent Serbia an ultimatum. The ultimatum contained lots of harsh terms, which Serbia accepted, except for 1. The term they refused was to allow Austro-Hungarian police, prosecutors, judges to directly investigate, arrest, prosecute and imprison Gavrilo's possible collaborators. And the reason they refused that was because it's basically giving up sovereignty. Once you let another country send their police force investigate, arrest, prosecute and imprison whomever they want, they have full control. They can imprison your prime minister and you have no recourse except for starting a war. So Serbia accepted that if it wanted to remain independent, it would have to accept fighting a war.

pyuser583 8mo ago

European countries aren’t known for strong privacy against the state. There are exceptions, but the EU’s “privacy rights” are almost exclusively against corporations. American privacy, by contrast, is almost exclusively focused on state surveillance. There are holes, the biggest being that foreigners on foreign soil have no privacy rights. Nor do the dead. But I’m not impressed with the “rights” Europeans have against state surveillance. Europeans aren’t willing to spend the money to do massive spy programs. Ok, fine. But that’s not the same as having civil liberties opposition. Switzerland has a reputation, good and bad, for strong privacy. But that’s not the norm.

dmix 8mo ago
I read an article that dug into public GDPR cases, which is a surprisingly small set, and it explained they have had a near zero impact on the massive advertising and data broker industry. They mostly just have a large back log of legal cases against large US companies like Google which occasionally result in fines - but even that moves very very slowly and has little impact on their global business models. They do also occasionally charged a few smaller European companies a few grand for violations. The key thing is that companies like Google and Meta run giant ad networks, there's many thousands of companies buying ads then collecting data in their own systems and reselling it. The privacy issues of data retention on Google/Meta/etc social and SaaS platforms is something to care about but it is only a small piece of the puzzle of data privacy. Ads will remain a major business for the foreseeable future as nobody is going to pay $5/m to use Instagram with no data collection.
- pyuser583 8mo ago
  I’ve read the GDPR has zero impacts on national security/law enforcement. It applies weakly to other state functions. I’ve also seen cases where GDPR is used against religious groups that have a strong religious justification for keeping lists of believers. Think Orthodox Jews and the Catholic Church, which regard family trees and baptismal certificates as semi-sacred. And kept on paper or scrolls. Not sure what to think about that. Regulating a sacred scroll like a database table seems wrong.