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.'"
Where do I sign up to vote "yes please"?
No sig today...
I agree, but for a different reason. ACTA. This says that have to keep stuff secret, or not keep it, and ACTA says they have to keep it, and give it to the *IAAs. The media industry will not want this loophole.
That's roughly what a lot of people said before the EU went after Microsoft for anti-competitive behaviour, too. More than $1,000,000,000 in fines for defying sanctions later, those people had changed their tune.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well the obvious answer is that they can't if it really has no EU ties, just like they can't do anything about sites outside the EU hosting child porn currently.
But that's just the way the world works, it's designed with that knowledge, but it wont protect companies like Facebook, Google, Apple etc. as they do have a prescence, and even if they withdrew that prescence they could potentially still harm those companies by preventing EU firms advertising with them for example.
I'm sure firms will argue it'll cause some competitive disadvantage, but I'm not convinced that's true- I'd argue the opposite if anything, users across the globe should feel far more comfortable using companies that adhere to these rules, than those that don't.
So I don't really see how it'll be a failure, it'll force all major online firms to adhere to it because they do have an EU prescence, and from there anyone else that doesn't comply will have the disadvantage of being much less attractive to customers. Who wants their data held by some fly by night company that has no restrictions on what it can do with that data when they can instead use a company with more ethical rules surrounding what it can and will do with your data?
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but being associated with Big Media is pretty much toxic for politicians right now.
Oh, and also in case you hadn't noticed, the EU hasn't actually signed ACTA yet. Technically they have until March next year, IIRC, though I expect someone will try to sneak it through in the very near future before the politicians realise it's too close to SOPA and PIPA (in some respects) and likely to cause similar grief.
Also, while the European Commission (the unelected guys who seem to be behind the secret negotiations) still publicly support ACTA, whether they can get it through the European Parliament (the elected guys who recently got new teeth under the Lisbon Treaty and seem to be enjoying exercising their powers) is a different question.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Big Fines should go to the users harmed, not the State. A corporate screw-up should be punished, but the money shouldn't be flushed down some bureaucratic hole.
Also - who is responsible for the fine if the breach is due to "off the shelf" software?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
No law like this will be passed on EU level unless it is absolutely certain that the core countries will adapt it without fuss.
Funny thing: some rights, you cannot sign away. So the EULA is irrelevant. For example, no contract of indentured servitude is legal. In the same way, you cannot sign away your right to privacy.
EU law has direct force in national law, EU law trumps national law, and questions of interpretation of EU law are handled by the EU court, whose decisions are binding for the national courts. The EU is very far from toothless in areas where it has legal competence.
If they are indeed replacing the '95 directive the "published document" will have the form of a EU directive, which member states are compelled to turn into national law. If they don't do so, the EC (or, I think, any citizen with standing) can sue them in the EU court for failing to comply.
What you are referring to as toothless is probably in issue domains like foreigh affairs and defense, where the member states have full competence and the only thing the EU can do is try to forge some sort of consensus.
Good fucking riddance. If they can't actually secure my private data, they shouldn't be in business in the first fucking place.
You people always bitch and moan about "regulations being a burden!", but for some reason, you think it's completely fucking ok for companies to just not give two shits about someone's data.
art: US? Seriously? Have you ever BEEN to Europe?
transport: US? Seriously? Where do you live that has better transit systems than most of (modern) Europe?
punishment: US? Is that YOU getting punished or your desire for strict punishment on OTHERS? The latter -- US, the former, Europe.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
And yet somehow, bureaucratic oppressive Europe got awesome privacy legislation. What did the democratic land of the free get? SOPA.
Life is good here in the socialist hellhole. ;-)