3 ms·

Indeed. And I'm surprised the European governments are just taking it.

mercurial 12y ago
There is the Data Protection Law, which makes, as far as I understand, transferring data to the US as ordered by the judge illegal. That said, why would you be surprised that the same governments happily collaborating with the NSA wouldn't do anything about privacy? We're pretty lucky as it is to have a privacy protection law at all.
toyg 12y ago
That's incorrect. European governments are "just taking it" when it comes to some areas; in particular anything to do with security is left to the US to do as they please, because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon); and multinational companies are powerful because of their money, regardless of where they come from. In this case, EU data-privacy laws emerged as a way to harmonize EU trade and law enforcement practices. They were then made compatible with US laws through various international agreements and treaties. Things were working, more or less. Then the US Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in haste, and broke everything. It took years to sketch out a way to make these incompatible laws work together, sort of. Grey areas were swept under the carpet, in hope that particular circumstances they covered "would never happen". Now they are happening, due to a combination of factors (the emergence of cloud computing, NSA revelations, differences in foreign policy stances, etc). Until Microsoft keeps this stance and the US legal landscape allows them to, EU governments simply don't have to do anything - the Data Protection Directive holds, US law enforcement yields. If MS is actually forced to hand over the data, then a response will be required from our side of the pond.
- randallsquared 12y ago
  > because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon) That may change more swiftly than you imagine. It seems like the US is already far more reluctant than ten years ago to go rushing in.
  - toyg 12y ago
    I don't think the US ever "rushed in" to attack Russian forces; even in the heated 1960s, people thought long and hard before pushing those nuclear buttons. There are many ways to provide military aid, not all of them involving your own troops; and with the rise of a strongly anti-Russian EU Commission, I bet all these options will be considered sooner rather than later. At the end of the day, it took years for NATO to intervene in Yugoslavia, a situation far less problematic than Ukraine (from the point of view of Russian engagement); but then they did intervene, twice. In the grand scheme of things, EU defense relies immensely on US forces and there are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon. The UK is struggling to just maintain capability, let alone expand it to replace allied resources. The French are now 100% integrated in NATO and have enough on their plate by caring for their African ex-colonies anyway. Italy and Spain can't pay state pensions, let alone expanding their military. The only country with some spare capacity would be Germany, which cannot do it for historical and political reasons. In fact, what the Ukraine crisis is showing is how Europe still cannot say no to the US in security matters: it was the US administration that pushed for escalating Maidan (remember "fuck the EU"?), it was the US administration that pushed for sanctions (with Europeans going along grudgingly) and it's the closest US allies (UK, Poland) who are now leading the charge for further escalation... and finding no formal opposition, despite plenty of grumbling across the continent. Because in practice, nobody can afford to lose their US umbrella.
    - xaa 12y ago
      As a U.S. citizen, I have been extremely confused about why there has been no global response to Ukraine, especially from Europe. You seem to be implying that the EU does not care about Ukraine at all and is only responding to the crisis there to the extent the US is pushing for it (i.e., not very much). Why not? Surely Europe doesn't want to set a precedent that Russia can foment and fund an "opposition", claim the existence of such an opposition means that the territory it is in should be annexed, and then annex it. I would have expected that Germany of all countries would recognize these tactics for exactly what they are: almost a direct replay of Hitler's pre-WWII tactics. It should be all the more galling because the proximal cause was that Ukraine was too "pro-EU". Yet the EU doesn't lift a finger. AFAICT, Obama doesn't do much because he is more concerned about ISIS, and sees Ukraine as a European problem.
- waps 12y ago
  > Then the US Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in haste, and broke everything. It took years to sketch out a way to make these incompatible laws work together, sort of. Grey areas were swept under the carpet, in hope that particular circumstances they covered "would never happen". Now they are happening, due to a combination of factors (the emergence of cloud computing, NSA revelations, differences in foreign policy stances, etc). This is what judges are always complaining about. Congress/parliament wants to look good and votes stuff in with utter disregard to the legal implications and how it interacts with other laws. There is still a big fight in EU law about equality between men and women interaction with divorce proceedings (you can imagine how long this has been going on). Before the equality vote is was okay to treat women differently when it comes to infidelity. Why ? Because in practice, offspring resulting from infidelity has rights (ie. inheritance + money) from both partners in a marriage. If a man has extramarital offspring, he can choose to not be known and he can choose not to be the legal parent. But men and women are equal, it's in the law. So ... what do we do ? a) can women deny legal parentage for kids (this would be a disaster for those kids) after giving birth ? The answer is no. Men, of course, can do this for obvious reasons. b) will we force natural parentage to be registered ? (problem here is, of course, that in many cases it's simply not known. And if the woman doesn't know, gets it wrong (unintentionally or otherwise) or isn't talking, what are you going to do ?) c) do you revise legal parentage during divorce proceedings (again, in many cases a disaster for the kids) For obvious reasons, parliaments are not touching this with a 10-foot pole. > In this case, EU data-privacy laws emerged as a way to harmonize EU trade and law enforcement practices. They were then made compatible with US laws through various international agreements and treaties. Things were working, more or less. I wonder why this even needs to be stated, but of course EU privacy laws do not protect against search and seizure as part of a criminal investigation.
  - yxhuvud 12y ago
    Criminal investigations in the USA have obviously no legal standing in the EU. What the US would have to do in that case would be to contact European law enforcement and ask them to help them. Which they wouldn't do, because what they would ask would be against the law.
mason240 12y ago
They are active participants.

There is the Data Protection Law, which makes, as far as I understand, transferring data to the US as ordered by the judge illegal. That said, why would you be surprised that the same governments happily collaborating with the NSA wouldn't do anything about privacy? We're pretty lucky as it is to have a privacy protection law at all.

toyg 12y ago

That's incorrect. European governments are "just taking it" when it comes to some areas; in particular anything to do with security is left to the US to do as they please, because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon); and multinational companies are powerful because of their money, regardless of where they come from. In this case, EU data-privacy laws emerged as a way to harmonize EU trade and law enforcement practices. They were then made compatible with US laws through various international agreements and treaties. Things were working, more or less. Then the US Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in haste, and broke everything. It took years to sketch out a way to make these incompatible laws work together, sort of. Grey areas were swept under the carpet, in hope that particular circumstances they covered "would never happen". Now they are happening, due to a combination of factors (the emergence of cloud computing, NSA revelations, differences in foreign policy stances, etc). Until Microsoft keeps this stance and the US legal landscape allows them to, EU governments simply don't have to do anything - the Data Protection Directive holds, US law enforcement yields. If MS is actually forced to hand over the data, then a response will be required from our side of the pond.

randallsquared 12y ago
> because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon) That may change more swiftly than you imagine. It seems like the US is already far more reluctant than ten years ago to go rushing in.
- toyg 12y ago
  I don't think the US ever "rushed in" to attack Russian forces; even in the heated 1960s, people thought long and hard before pushing those nuclear buttons. There are many ways to provide military aid, not all of them involving your own troops; and with the rise of a strongly anti-Russian EU Commission, I bet all these options will be considered sooner rather than later. At the end of the day, it took years for NATO to intervene in Yugoslavia, a situation far less problematic than Ukraine (from the point of view of Russian engagement); but then they did intervene, twice. In the grand scheme of things, EU defense relies immensely on US forces and there are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon. The UK is struggling to just maintain capability, let alone expand it to replace allied resources. The French are now 100% integrated in NATO and have enough on their plate by caring for their African ex-colonies anyway. Italy and Spain can't pay state pensions, let alone expanding their military. The only country with some spare capacity would be Germany, which cannot do it for historical and political reasons. In fact, what the Ukraine crisis is showing is how Europe still cannot say no to the US in security matters: it was the US administration that pushed for escalating Maidan (remember "fuck the EU"?), it was the US administration that pushed for sanctions (with Europeans going along grudgingly) and it's the closest US allies (UK, Poland) who are now leading the charge for further escalation... and finding no formal opposition, despite plenty of grumbling across the continent. Because in practice, nobody can afford to lose their US umbrella.
  - xaa 12y ago
    As a U.S. citizen, I have been extremely confused about why there has been no global response to Ukraine, especially from Europe. You seem to be implying that the EU does not care about Ukraine at all and is only responding to the crisis there to the extent the US is pushing for it (i.e., not very much). Why not? Surely Europe doesn't want to set a precedent that Russia can foment and fund an "opposition", claim the existence of such an opposition means that the territory it is in should be annexed, and then annex it. I would have expected that Germany of all countries would recognize these tactics for exactly what they are: almost a direct replay of Hitler's pre-WWII tactics. It should be all the more galling because the proximal cause was that Ukraine was too "pro-EU". Yet the EU doesn't lift a finger. AFAICT, Obama doesn't do much because he is more concerned about ISIS, and sees Ukraine as a European problem.
waps 12y ago
> Then the US Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in haste, and broke everything. It took years to sketch out a way to make these incompatible laws work together, sort of. Grey areas were swept under the carpet, in hope that particular circumstances they covered "would never happen". Now they are happening, due to a combination of factors (the emergence of cloud computing, NSA revelations, differences in foreign policy stances, etc). This is what judges are always complaining about. Congress/parliament wants to look good and votes stuff in with utter disregard to the legal implications and how it interacts with other laws. There is still a big fight in EU law about equality between men and women interaction with divorce proceedings (you can imagine how long this has been going on). Before the equality vote is was okay to treat women differently when it comes to infidelity. Why ? Because in practice, offspring resulting from infidelity has rights (ie. inheritance + money) from both partners in a marriage. If a man has extramarital offspring, he can choose to not be known and he can choose not to be the legal parent. But men and women are equal, it's in the law. So ... what do we do ? a) can women deny legal parentage for kids (this would be a disaster for those kids) after giving birth ? The answer is no. Men, of course, can do this for obvious reasons. b) will we force natural parentage to be registered ? (problem here is, of course, that in many cases it's simply not known. And if the woman doesn't know, gets it wrong (unintentionally or otherwise) or isn't talking, what are you going to do ?) c) do you revise legal parentage during divorce proceedings (again, in many cases a disaster for the kids) For obvious reasons, parliaments are not touching this with a 10-foot pole. > In this case, EU data-privacy laws emerged as a way to harmonize EU trade and law enforcement practices. They were then made compatible with US laws through various international agreements and treaties. Things were working, more or less. I wonder why this even needs to be stated, but of course EU privacy laws do not protect against search and seizure as part of a criminal investigation.
- yxhuvud 12y ago
  Criminal investigations in the USA have obviously no legal standing in the EU. What the US would have to do in that case would be to contact European law enforcement and ask them to help them. Which they wouldn't do, because what they would ask would be against the law.

mason240 12y ago

They are active participants.