Slashdot Mirror
Patriot Act vs. the EU's Data Protection Directive
itwbennett writes "Last week, Microsoft warned that under the Patriot Act the company may be compelled to hand over European customers' data on its new cloud service to U.S. authorities — and also to keep the data transfer secret. This, of course, runs counter to the European Data Protection Directive, which states that organizations must inform users when they disclose personal information. 'Microsoft can already transfer E.U. data to the U.S. under the Safe Harbor agreement. But legal experts have warned that this agreement is hardly worth the paper it's written on,' writes IDG News Service's Jennifer Baker. 'There are seven principles of Safe Harbor, including reasonable data security, and clearly defined and effective enforcement. However all this is nullified if the Patriot Act is invoked.'"
Seriously, why can't we get rid of it?
The internet short circuited two jurisdictions causing paradoxical rift in cyberlegalspace.
Korma: Good
It will end in tears.
This means war! EU vs US. Let's see who's got the chops.
...win again.
I'm someone interested in releasing my software.
I've worked on this software for about 1 year my time, and done things I think are "research" in their newness.
Releasing any software in the U.S. is basically opening me up to a multitude of unfounded lawsuits and I become a target for corporate espionage - why do I bother.
As a euro developer - I must confess that the U.S. is looking less and less interesting as a revenue source.
All the "steal people's data" and the "we control domains" - why on earth would I think about building a business in this piranha pool?
Ok lets ask an easier question.... ... Who doesn't have access to my personal data ?
There are specific exceptions for 'National Security' in both the European directive and each country's implementation (eg the Data Protection Act in the UK).
So all the US needs to do is find a shill (the UK government would be my guess at their first choice) who will declare that they need to export 'this' data as a matter of 'National Security' (honest!) and Microsoft and in the clear and the US get what they want.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Hard to imagine people still cling to the idea that we must give up our freedoms to protect us from the people who hate us for our freedoms.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
This is not an issue of the US government wanting information and needing a shill to send it to them. It is simply a matter of Microsoft, as a U.S.-based corporation having to turn over information on all its dealings with extra-nationals at the U.S. government's request. Euro privacy law would prohibit some of that and since Microsoft makes use of European systems, this falls under Euro privacy law. It is a horrible mess but the U.S. law will trump the EU law because...
... the data is also in the U.S." If the EU bothers MS over it, there will be several amicus curiae from virtually every other company based in the US and likely the US gov't as well. ... if it even gets that far (and it won't).
Microsoft is a U.S. company. Would your solution help smooth things over for Microsoft? Yes. Is it necessary? No. Safe harbor, as noted in the article, lets MS transfer everything to the U.S. anyway (meaning the data is now on U.S. servers subject... only to U.S. law). If MS gets sued, one of their in-house counsel will waltz over to the EU and say, "hi, we're subject to U.S. law first... didn't you guys see that in the terms of service and eula? Oh, and
The USA is screwing the only friends they have left over (again)...
So whats the news again?
For the rest of the world it's the Transferring Restricted Access Information To Obstruct Rights act or TRAITOR act
You know, every time I see a story about some business "gone wrong" due to involvement with China, I usually hold my tongue because what I want to say is that doing business with US based companies can be every bit as problematic as doing business with a Chinese company. And the problem doesn't start or end with the PATRIOT act. It goes on and on and on due to all sorts of problems such as software patents, the DMCA and more.
Things that are legal in other countries are illegal here and will get you screwed over if you happen to have a connecting flight here. We've seen that story play out before too. Heck, for that matter, you don't even have to do business with a US company -- recall the guy who was accused of some sort of illegal thing by Cisco which resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of some guy in Canada? Yeah, the USDOJ was unable to produce the evidence it has promised from the beginning.
So yeah... there you go. The US is the new China whether anyone wants to believe it or not.
Can we just overthrow our fucking peeping-tom government already and put up something suitably less needy, greedy and pervy in its place? The government needs to go back to the point of being TOO FUCKING AFRAID of pissing off its populace to entertain shit like this.
I figure a little violent revolution with a few thousand politicoes executed publicly and messily ought to give us another 1-200-ish years of peace.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I learned a bit about the Patriot Act when buying a house. Prior to the Patriot Act you had to disclose sufficient financial information to the bank for them to take the risk of the loan. You had to prove you had the down payment, provide a credit report, and appraise the house. But they didn't really care where or how you got the money. But under the Patriot Act you have to provide an audit trail for all of your assets. For example, you must show where you got your down payment from and where it was for the past 6 months, etc. In my case I sold stocks so I had to show tons of statements prove that the money really came from those stocks, not some other place.
It was fairly creepy. I felt like I was depositing money in a bank and the government required proof that I didn't get the money by selling drugs. It really slowed things down and complicated it. I used to watch TV shows where the police had ridiculous access to people's information, but I see now how that is happening. I can imagine a time when the government can track every dollar - where it goes and where it came from.
After all the money is the property of the government that issued it.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's
and thanks to the Patriot Act we are almost back in the cold war mentality (fear). Everyone was in fear of commies. You could point someone out as a commie and the government boys would take them for a 'ride'. If you could not prove satisfactorily that you were not a commie there was a problem...
Although the Patriot Act does give a much wider range of activities that should be hunted out (not just commies) and the government agencies now have a much broader field to play with you on.
O_o
Some great politicians we have there, keeping a watch over our safety ??
If bars don't serve drunk people, then McDonald's shouldn't serve fat people...
EU countries also have the ability to access pretty much everything they like in the interest of national security. Some European nations even allow government access to data for police work without a court order. And they don't ask questions whether the data involved comes from Europeans or US citizens.
So I really don't see what the fuss is about. The only reason this matters more in the EU->US direction is because there are a lot more US companies that EU citizens like to use than the other way around. But that's hardly America's fault or problem.
Dude, Obama is a Republican, not a socialist. Let's see: ...
1) Obama caves in to EVERY demand of the Republican party.
2) His healthcare reform is basically Romneycare.
3) Obama continues Bush's policies on torture and covering up government crimes.
If Obama were a socialist, you'd have a single-payer healthcare system right now.
As I understand it correctly, this is not the case. If Microsoft EU would be a daughter of a US based division of Microsoft (and it would) they still would be required to hand over the data on request even if Mircosoft EU and it cloud servers would be placed inside the EU. I thought that that was the whole issue, that the Patriot Act applies to all U.S. based companies and all its daughter companies no matter where they are based. In a sense there is simpy no way, Microsoft is going to provide any type of cloud service if they want to adhere to European laws. And this is true for any company based in the U.S.. Actually, this will be a boost for European companies providing cloud services inside Europe.
Wrong.
In the US if a corporation has your data it's now their data and they can do whatever the hell they like with it.
In Europe they have to have permission (possibly implied but explicit if it's 'sensitive' like medical records) to hold and process your data.
They have to register what they plan on doing with the data and tell you when you agree- so they can't suddenly decide they're going to use the information you provided to make a travel booking to start marketing cars. Nor can they suddenly decide they are going to process it overseas.
SafeHarbour and similar schemes are automatically OK either- you still have to declare that you will be using them to the Information Commissioner and it's entirely up to you to ensure that you still conform to data protection laws- just using SafeHarbour doesn't let you off the hook it's just easier to get permission to use it.
Superficially your final point is valid- but only if you ignore your poor internal human rights- you still had legally sanctioned racial segregation in the 60s! And their record since then isn't exactly the model of a democratic freedom loving Government.
I'd go as far as saying that the 'bad habits' European democracies have picked up recently have been caught from the US.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
It should read "SafeHarbour and similar schemes are NOT automatically OK either-"
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
[blockquote]Your point being? The US is a sovereign nation. Of course, it is going to have strategies for defending its interests.[/blockquote]
I have just two questions for you:
- firstly do you think morality and ethics have any value or does might make right and it's the duty of every government to force it's will upon others if it's capable of doing so?
- second do you think the US Government is doing this for the good of it's citizens or the good of a bunch of corporations who make large donations?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
t2t10 fantasises that "While European nations were busy raping and pillaging across the globe, American was mostly farming and building up an industrial base."
Really? So the US wasn't busy wiping out the indigenous populations by both direct military means but also using biological weapons (blankets infected with small pox)?
They weren't making unprovoked attacks on other nations: Britain (War of 1812), Spain (repeatedly) and Mexico. If we'd applied the same standards to the US then as was applied to Germany after WW2 your leaders would have been hanged as well for carrying out wars of aggression.
The US fought a civil war because so many of you thought it was the moral and ethical thing to do to keep millions of other human beings enslaved in order to maintain their life-style.
And of course you were also busy discriminating against your own citizens, quite legally, until the middle of the 20th. And still are but not with quite the same degree of overt legal sanction- what proportion of the prison population in your country is black? How much more likely is a black-man to be executed for a crime compared to a white-man who commits the same crime?.
I think you're looking at your country's history through rose tinted glasses. The US has, through out it's history, been an opportunistic bully.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
The SWIFT agreement was already a scandal. Although the EU demanded and obtained some reciprocity in the agreement it still is against the data protection directive. But I guess the really trick here is the "in secret" part. If it really is in secret than laws are only needed when/if you're found.
we still need to run all of Bin Laden's playbook.
The state's right debate was entirely to do with the southern state's 'right' to allow slavery.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
I'll see your atheist bias and raise your one Adolf Hitler (Atheist) and a Joseph Stalin (Atheist) and put in the pot the 10s of millions of people the murdered.
Religion in general , even Christianity in particular, possibly hasn't been a protector of liberties but the biggest criminals against humanity have been atheists.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.