3 ms·
I feel the article is a bit roundabout, but eventually gets to the point: "Sovereignty" is not (mainly) about physical location, it's about which legal entity c
by xg15 5mo ago
I feel the article is a bit roundabout, but eventually gets to the point: "Sovereignty" is not (mainly) about physical location, it's about which legal entity controls the data and whether or not that entity is subject to US jurisdiction and could be forced to disclose the data to US companies or agencies, in violation of EU law.
- politician 5mo agoWhich is mightily funny because in the opening paragraph the article equates "anti-free movement" with "problematic baggage". It's a problem if people can't move freely in and out of Europe, but not data -- that's our red line!
- xg15 5mo agoI mean... Yes? People and data about people are two different things - as is who is doing the "movement" in the first place. Would you also support free movement of all the valuables in your bank vault?
- politician 5mo agoThis doesn't make sense as a rebuttal. Article is OK with people moving uncontrolled in/out/around Europe. Article is NOT OK with data moving uncontrolled in/out/around Europe. It's stupid. It's quintessential luxury belief thinking. The article supposes that there exists people that fear their data being misused but don't fear their taxes being misused on welfare for a random population of benefit seekers. The article would have been better without the self-own "problematic baggage" language.
- xg15 5mo agoBecause you have so much insight how your taxes are used otherwise. But welfare, that's where you draw the line... Just ask yourself who would be doing the misuse to see that this comparison makes no sense.
- politician 5mo ago[dead]
- nickv 5mo agoI typically don't have to worry about somebody "sneaking and selling my body for their profit" without me, at least, being aware of it.