7 ms·

Surely there would have been mumblings in certain sectors of the EU since the first Trump administration? It’s just that they started to execute now?

embedding-shape 5mo ago
There been mumblings for as long as I've been a developer, I remember hearing about "EU data independence" first when the ePrivacy Directive came around, which must have been multiple decades ago at this point. But yeah, in recent times the sentiment became more urgent. If I were to guess, with zero data in front of me and just judging by what I remember, I think the sentiment really changed first with the ICC blockade that happened last year, then it got really fueled on by the US threats to Greenland's sovereignty, I think that's when organizations and people really got stressed out about moving ASAP.
- spockz 5mo ago
  Around me, the threat to Greenland is what kicked the plans from “okay what mitigations should we envision?” to “alright, let’s go as far to actually run shadow ops to get acquainted with …” to full on move after the invasion.
- pjc50 5mo ago
  Yes, that was the thing that set off all the alarms. Trump 1 said a lot of things but had not completed the Hungary-fication of the US. Trump 1 was also before the Ukraine war!
- vanschelven 5mo ago
  Trump may genuinely end up being the best salesman European hosting companies ever had. I run one of the tools mentioned in this post (Bugsink) and I literally had an uptick of Danish people/companies (specifically) reaching out to me after Davos.
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    As someone who've basically started being known as "The guy who helps you move data out of US to Europe" in certain circles, I'm not complaining either :)
patrickmcnamara 5mo ago
Trump 2 is worse than Trump 1 by far from EU perspective. And it also proved that it wasn't a once-off that Americans will vote in someone who threatens to dismantle NATO, invade Greenland, or start trade wars with allies for no reason.
- mrits 5mo ago
  From the a US perspective, EU hate each other and I see no way any temporary cohesiveness will last. Most EU countries are just as likely to elect a Trump in the next decade
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    > EU hate each other What gave you the impression that EU members hate each other? It'd be a weird union if that was the case. Not saying it's not possible, I just haven't seen it myself, although I am a Swede so clearly I do hate the Danes and the Norrbaggar with passion, but it's love-hate, not hate-hate.
    - rapnie 5mo ago
      Likely OP refers to individual countries and quarreling leaders often favoring national interests to what would be best for the union.
      - embedding-shape 5mo ago
        > leaders often favoring national interests to what would be best for the union If we're talking about leaders for member states, then they're doing their job right :) They're not meant to figure out what's best for the union, we have separate elections for those people who go to EU and represent the country + care about the union. The national "leaders" of the country are quite expected to put national interests above what's best for the union :)
        jurgenburgen 5mo ago
solumunus 5mo ago
Trump wasn't threatening to invade European countries and supporting Putin's position in an ongoing war in term 1. He has been far more outwardly anti-EU in term 2.
palata 5mo ago
I feel like the concern started getting popularised during the first Trump administration, because the US were overtly bullying the EU (and others of course). But the main change was that it was done overtly: before that the US has always been a big power trying to... say "defend the interests of the US" abroad. E.g. the US have been spying their allies forever. So I think it was more of a "they should stop bullying us in a few years", and indeed it went back to normal with Biden (again, "defending the interests of the US" and "leveraging their dominant position", which was kind of accepted). The second Trump administration moved from "overtly bullying" to "behaving like a potential threat". In the second Trump administration, the US has used the tech monopolies against the EU and has become a military threat (not to mention the commercial war with tariffs). For many Europeans, it's not that the US are abusing their dominant position in negotiations anymore: it's that they are not an ally anymore. Not that they are seen as an enemy, but rather an unreliable partner who threatened to become an enemy. I think that this is a very big shift, and that is why things are actually moving. And I don't think that this will change, because the risk of depending on the US monopolies has now materialised. That cannot be undone.
- ambicapter 5mo ago
  I think this is pretty much what Mark Carney said at his speech in Davos.
  - palata 5mo ago
    Really? That makes me pretty proud :D.
- brabel 5mo ago
  If even all the shenanigans from the US administration and essentially it threatening to invade European territory did not result in European companies and governments finally doing something about their digital sovereignty, then nothing but a declaration of war would.
  - palata 5mo ago
    Possibly, yeah. The thing is, there is a lot of inertia in Europe, because it is a union of 27 countries. It's not that one election can change it all.
vga1 5mo ago
Yeah, AWS even was trying to found a EU sovereign cloud precisely for this reason. https://aws.eu/ https://aws.eu/ I haven't heard of anyone moving to this, though.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  I guess they eventually read their own local (US) laws and figured no one cares about that effort since Amazon is still covered by CLOUD Act, regardless of what ccTLD they happen to use for their landing page. > The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil. Once that was in place, AWS could host their "EU" servers on the moon for all I and others care, still not a solution to avoid the claws of the US.
  - crote 5mo ago
    Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company' so the CLOUD Act doesn't apply. They aren't a local subsidiary, they are an independent company licensing the AWS tech stack to operate fully independently on their own hardware - which just happens to also have a license to the AWS name. It's a rather clever idea, and it essentially prevents EU government organisations from excluding them from tenders by requiring EU-based ownership. It obviously won't convince anyone with half a brain that they are genuinely independent, but the government lawyers are going to have a really hard time writing tenders in a way which excludes them from participating.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      > Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company' I'm not sure this is actually the idea, it still isn't so in practice for sure, I'm not sure where this misconception comes from. The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security memo says the Dutch government asked AWS who ultimately owns AWS European Sovereign Cloud GmbH and AWS Luxembourg. According to that memo, AWS stated that both are indirectly owned by Amazon.com, Inc, and this is all public information: https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/36acf7a6-1ea3-401e-86ad-45119baf05fb/file https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/36acf7a6-1ea3-401e-86ad-... Besides, it doesn't really matter who is the parent or where it geographically is located, 18 U.S.C. § 2713 states this: > [...] regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States. It'd be a clever idea if it was actually 100% independent, but then it also wouldn't make sense for AWS/Amazon to do, it'd have to be actually independent then, not this weird mix-match of "some stuff in the US and some in EU" which they seem to be aiming for currently.
6510 5mo ago
Thats overly flattering, there have always been good arguments for having your data in the same country (if not the same building) A worse case hypothetical trump is really much worse than the real one. On the other hand it is also lame to shift the blame on the US. A bit like Jim stole your car after you left the doors open, the key in the ignition and the engine running. Jim is a bad man.
tracker1 5mo ago
I saw a lot of privacy focused reactions when they cut off Trump from social media before his term ended, while still in office. National sovereignty should always be a consideration, especially when it comes to anything related to essential infrastructure. Not every country is able to insource everything, or even a portion of everything... but every country should make an effort to ensure than there is at least some domestic production for everything that is reasonable related to essential infrastructure. The US, China, Russia, EU (as a whole) and maybe Brazil are the countries in the best position to be able to do that more than most others just by their size and positions. And even that has limitations. For example, IMO, the US should be manufacturing at least half of it's prescription medications domestically... it should also be producing a significant portion of it's communications devices domestically as well. We're too dependent on Taiwan and South Korea for technology currently. I would encourage every nation to consider and take steps towards ensuring their own infrastructure... this does not mean isolation, just security footing.

embedding-shape 5mo ago

There been mumblings for as long as I've been a developer, I remember hearing about "EU data independence" first when the ePrivacy Directive came around, which must have been multiple decades ago at this point. But yeah, in recent times the sentiment became more urgent. If I were to guess, with zero data in front of me and just judging by what I remember, I think the sentiment really changed first with the ICC blockade that happened last year, then it got really fueled on by the US threats to Greenland's sovereignty, I think that's when organizations and people really got stressed out about moving ASAP.

spockz 5mo ago
Around me, the threat to Greenland is what kicked the plans from “okay what mitigations should we envision?” to “alright, let’s go as far to actually run shadow ops to get acquainted with …” to full on move after the invasion.
pjc50 5mo ago
Yes, that was the thing that set off all the alarms. Trump 1 said a lot of things but had not completed the Hungary-fication of the US. Trump 1 was also before the Ukraine war!
vanschelven 5mo ago
Trump may genuinely end up being the best salesman European hosting companies ever had. I run one of the tools mentioned in this post (Bugsink) and I literally had an uptick of Danish people/companies (specifically) reaching out to me after Davos.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  As someone who've basically started being known as "The guy who helps you move data out of US to Europe" in certain circles, I'm not complaining either :)

patrickmcnamara 5mo ago

Trump 2 is worse than Trump 1 by far from EU perspective. And it also proved that it wasn't a once-off that Americans will vote in someone who threatens to dismantle NATO, invade Greenland, or start trade wars with allies for no reason.

mrits 5mo ago
From the a US perspective, EU hate each other and I see no way any temporary cohesiveness will last. Most EU countries are just as likely to elect a Trump in the next decade
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  > EU hate each other What gave you the impression that EU members hate each other? It'd be a weird union if that was the case. Not saying it's not possible, I just haven't seen it myself, although I am a Swede so clearly I do hate the Danes and the Norrbaggar with passion, but it's love-hate, not hate-hate.
  - rapnie 5mo ago
    Likely OP refers to individual countries and quarreling leaders often favoring national interests to what would be best for the union.
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      > leaders often favoring national interests to what would be best for the union If we're talking about leaders for member states, then they're doing their job right :) They're not meant to figure out what's best for the union, we have separate elections for those people who go to EU and represent the country + care about the union. The national "leaders" of the country are quite expected to put national interests above what's best for the union :)
      - jurgenburgen 5mo ago

solumunus 5mo ago

Trump wasn't threatening to invade European countries and supporting Putin's position in an ongoing war in term 1. He has been far more outwardly anti-EU in term 2.

palata 5mo ago

I feel like the concern started getting popularised during the first Trump administration, because the US were overtly bullying the EU (and others of course). But the main change was that it was done overtly: before that the US has always been a big power trying to... say "defend the interests of the US" abroad. E.g. the US have been spying their allies forever. So I think it was more of a "they should stop bullying us in a few years", and indeed it went back to normal with Biden (again, "defending the interests of the US" and "leveraging their dominant position", which was kind of accepted). The second Trump administration moved from "overtly bullying" to "behaving like a potential threat". In the second Trump administration, the US has used the tech monopolies against the EU and has become a military threat (not to mention the commercial war with tariffs). For many Europeans, it's not that the US are abusing their dominant position in negotiations anymore: it's that they are not an ally anymore. Not that they are seen as an enemy, but rather an unreliable partner who threatened to become an enemy. I think that this is a very big shift, and that is why things are actually moving. And I don't think that this will change, because the risk of depending on the US monopolies has now materialised. That cannot be undone.

ambicapter 5mo ago
I think this is pretty much what Mark Carney said at his speech in Davos.
- palata 5mo ago
  Really? That makes me pretty proud :D.
brabel 5mo ago
If even all the shenanigans from the US administration and essentially it threatening to invade European territory did not result in European companies and governments finally doing something about their digital sovereignty, then nothing but a declaration of war would.
- palata 5mo ago
  Possibly, yeah. The thing is, there is a lot of inertia in Europe, because it is a union of 27 countries. It's not that one election can change it all.

vga1 5mo ago

Yeah, AWS even was trying to found a EU sovereign cloud precisely for this reason. https://aws.eu/ https://aws.eu/ I haven't heard of anyone moving to this, though.

embedding-shape 5mo ago
I guess they eventually read their own local (US) laws and figured no one cares about that effort since Amazon is still covered by CLOUD Act, regardless of what ccTLD they happen to use for their landing page. > The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil. Once that was in place, AWS could host their "EU" servers on the moon for all I and others care, still not a solution to avoid the claws of the US.
- crote 5mo ago
  Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company' so the CLOUD Act doesn't apply. They aren't a local subsidiary, they are an independent company licensing the AWS tech stack to operate fully independently on their own hardware - which just happens to also have a license to the AWS name. It's a rather clever idea, and it essentially prevents EU government organisations from excluding them from tenders by requiring EU-based ownership. It obviously won't convince anyone with half a brain that they are genuinely independent, but the government lawyers are going to have a really hard time writing tenders in a way which excludes them from participating.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    > Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company' I'm not sure this is actually the idea, it still isn't so in practice for sure, I'm not sure where this misconception comes from. The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security memo says the Dutch government asked AWS who ultimately owns AWS European Sovereign Cloud GmbH and AWS Luxembourg. According to that memo, AWS stated that both are indirectly owned by Amazon.com, Inc, and this is all public information: https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/36acf7a6-1ea3-401e-86ad-45119baf05fb/file https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/36acf7a6-1ea3-401e-86ad-... Besides, it doesn't really matter who is the parent or where it geographically is located, 18 U.S.C. § 2713 states this: > [...] regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States. It'd be a clever idea if it was actually 100% independent, but then it also wouldn't make sense for AWS/Amazon to do, it'd have to be actually independent then, not this weird mix-match of "some stuff in the US and some in EU" which they seem to be aiming for currently.

6510 5mo ago

Thats overly flattering, there have always been good arguments for having your data in the same country (if not the same building) A worse case hypothetical trump is really much worse than the real one. On the other hand it is also lame to shift the blame on the US. A bit like Jim stole your car after you left the doors open, the key in the ignition and the engine running. Jim is a bad man.

tracker1 5mo ago

I saw a lot of privacy focused reactions when they cut off Trump from social media before his term ended, while still in office. National sovereignty should always be a consideration, especially when it comes to anything related to essential infrastructure. Not every country is able to insource everything, or even a portion of everything... but every country should make an effort to ensure than there is at least some domestic production for everything that is reasonable related to essential infrastructure. The US, China, Russia, EU (as a whole) and maybe Brazil are the countries in the best position to be able to do that more than most others just by their size and positions. And even that has limitations. For example, IMO, the US should be manufacturing at least half of it's prescription medications domestically... it should also be producing a significant portion of it's communications devices domestically as well. We're too dependent on Taiwan and South Korea for technology currently. I would encourage every nation to consider and take steps towards ensuring their own infrastructure... this does not mean isolation, just security footing.