Slashdot Mirror
New EU Legal Privacy Framework: We're Not Kidding
An anonymous reader writes "Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission announced today a new regulation for data privacy in Europe (PDF) in replacement of a 1995 Directive. Recently, privacy laws have been under a lot of criticism for their practical inability to ensure a high level of protection to EU citizens. The new data privacy framework will bring a lot of changes: 24 hours security breach notifications, mandatory security assessments, end of notifications to local data privacy agencies, mandatory data protection officers and huge administrative fines: up to 2% of the annual worldwide turnover (that would have meant $1.2 Billion for Microsoft in 2008). Indeed that's 'the necessary "teeth" so the rules can be enforced.'"
No it can't just be ignored. If these laws pass, every EU country will be forced to implement them. The European Commission has very sharp teeth indeed on stuff like this, and does not take kindly to companies trying to ignore its rules.
The article could be misinterpreted to mean this is a done deal as is.
Transferring personal data from inside the EEA to places outside like the US, where there are not such strong data protection rules, requires either the subject's consent or certain specific guarantees under a safe harbour agreement. Otherwise taking the data out is already illegal.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It is completely within their remit. The part of the company paying is EU-based, but the fine is calculated based on worldwide activities.
The EU structure is designed explicitly to prevent those pesky citizens from having a voice in how they are to be lead. The EU is designed for EU bureaucratic elites to govern what were formerly nations in ways that best benefit EU bureaucratic elites and their financial backers.
This is why the Euro debt crises is unfolding in its current forms. The entire purpose of pouring ever larger rescue funds into keeping the Euro solvent is so that losses can be transferred from banks to taxpayers.
Your input is neither required, nor desired, nor, in fact, even possible.
In most of Europe, we don't vote for judges. They are appointed and are quite immune to lobbyists. Also, most of Europe has a civil law system, and under that system, the laws do not get "interpreted" by the judges...
It is a bug of the American system that judges are affected by lobbyists and get to decide what laws mean. This doesn't mean our system is better. This is just a bug we don't have.
In the Netherlands, there is a "knowledge worker" rule that says that if you can find a job that requires a degree and pays X% better than minimum (or modal?) wage, it's easy to get a working permit, plus you get a huge tax break (although I think there are cutting down on the latter). Any decent sized company will have someone in the HRM department who knows these rules and can help with the paper work.
If you are here 5 years and pass a test you can apply for citizenship but that might require renouncing your US citizenship.
to be precise: The important part is a regulation, hence it does not need to be transposed into national law! It is mandatory for the member states to comply. It is down to the European Parliament to adopt it, which of course has representatives from every member state.
Vote yes for more expansive government authority to protect you from something that would be no danger if you could just keep your mouth shut. Governments shouldn't be about protecting you from yourself.
How would "keeping their mouth shut" prevent consumer data disclosures? Companies that aren't doing business "online" still hold a treasure trove of data about you, much of which I'd imagine you'd prefer was kept private. ...if they were under any obligation to disclose to you that they were holding information about you, that is.
Who did what now?
In the Netherlands,
The Dutch-American Friendship Treaty allows Americans to come to the Netherlands and start a business or be self-employed. All you need is a moderately coherent business plan, health insurance, and about 5000 Euros in your bank account.
An average American techie that actually wants to move can do it, settle in, and then worry about finding a more permanent job with a more permanent visa status. It is so ridiculously easy for US citizens that when someone asks about it as the GP did, you have to wonder if they are actually serious or just expressing their frustrations.
What you describe is possible, yet probitively difficult. Transferring assets with this intent, particularly if the old company becomes insolvent, is a criminal offence (at least in the UK). There is a whole raft of laws that make this process more complicated than slipping on a fresh pair of underpants. Granted though, fly-by-night operations could try such a thing, yet by your logic, pretty much all laws can be rendered useless.
-- Using the preview button since 2005