Slashdot Mirror
EU Resists US Lobbying As Privacy War Looms
judgecorp writes "The European Commission is resisting pressure from US firms and public bodies designed to derail its privacy proposals, which include the 'right to be forgotten' that would allow users to demand their data be removed from Internet sites. Facebook and others oppose the right to be forgotten as it would interfere with their ability to market stuff at friends and connections of their users."
The European Commission is resisting pressure from US firms and public bodies designed to derail its privacy proposals
What kind of leverage/offer do they have (particularly the US firms)
I thought you cannot bribe (erm... lobby) European politicians as directly as in US?
... shouldn't be surprised to find that even with successful lobbying to get the EU's initiatives derailed, they'll suffer backlash from their European market. The cultures (yes, multiple) here, you see, are a tad different from what's accepted in USoA interstate commerce. So you can track your consumers' (because customers would have rights, whereas consumers can be, and so are, sold and bought like CDOs) every move and poke them with the most targeted adverts imaginable, down to while they're at the loo. And instead of phenomenal sales growth, you may just find they get sick of you and you start to lose against everyone who isn't quite that aggressive.
The USoA government, of course, has European governments well-cowed and will get the data anyway, but that too will, in the long run, bring more grief than joy. Not that anyone'll listen. If recent history teaches anything, it's that Americans[tm] are too full of themselves and their own petty politics (it's like that music, see? they've got gops AND dems 'round here) to listen to, nevermind respect, anyone else.
Of course, playing nice with others has never been America's strong suit, so why expect them to change now? Just ignore the buggers and hope they don't get a bug up their arses and invade you.
should be a treasonable offense by public officials. String the state dept up, every single last one of them.
please check the definition of treason in the US:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Who says that giant corporations aren't an enemy to the good of the nation? (aside from them)
Also, any EU regulations on the "right to be forgotten" can be no more than regulations on businesses and is unlikely to apply to such a foundation.
Er... no. EU powers, including in the area of data protection, do not just apply to businesses.
You cannot. Because they do not exist. "Welcome breath of fresh air"? Er no, the Commission has the strange idea that citizens deserve to have their rights protected more than corporations deserve the freedom to take them away. That is why the UK neocons want out of the EU: it stands up for ordinary people.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I don't know where you got the impression that this was about a right to completely scrub oneself from every server on the internet with a magic button. It's about the right to tell a web site, to which you have previously provided information, that it must remove that information.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
According to EU law personal information will always remain the property of the individual, something companies and organisations operating in the EU are well aware of.
When the owner of said data sends you a take down request you have to comply, no ifs and buts.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
This is from the 1995 law that is under change proposal. Wording about who it applies to:
From EUR-Lex:
(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law;
(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;
... whatever
The European Commission do indeed do lots of stupid things but I think anything aimed at giving users greater privacy and control over their personal information is a good thing.
The EC makes shit tons of good stuff that you never hear about. A lot more than bad stuff, in fact.
The EC's biggest problem stems from EU governments that actively lobby it to pass regulations and directives on unpopular topics. Local politicians seldom mention that their great new reform is a mere transcription into local law of an EU directive (aka something they're obligated to do). In contrast, they'll sure as hell blame EU technocrats (which, incidentally, they named) for coming up with directives that force them to pass much needed yet highly unpopular reforms.
A case in point is the recent lashing out at the EU over deficit reduction. No politician gets elected in the EU by promising to axe the public sector, axe entitlement programs, raise taxes, and so on. The EU stability pact, in this light, is a blessing: they get to do all that with a convenient scapegoat. Hollande's position on it during the French presidential campaign, in this regard, was exemplary of EU demagoguery. He posed for voters, promising that he'd renegotiate the pact. Upon being elected, he quacked around for a few weeks, in an effort to disguise his pig of a bluff into a not-too-ugly princess. And, now, he can now freely blame his predecessor and the EU to pass the highly unpopular reforms that he knew were much needed from the start. (Whether he actually does remains an open question, but I'd opine that he has little choice.)
I'll give you one for free: the original video of "Science: It's a girl thing!"
The execution was laughable, but that's actually a good idea imho -- IT departments could use more chicks. Plus, the laughable execution made it get more attention that it may have had otherwise, meaning that they may have gotten the message through regardless.
Most people don't care about anything, unless and until it affects them personally.
This is (in theory) why governments enact "nanny state" legislation; to prepare for, and protect its population from, bad things that those who will be affected haven't even considered yet.
Few people consider about the cost of hospitalisation after a car accident, until they're in one. Hence national health services.
Few people consider the cost of leaving embarrassing photos on Facebook, until it comes up in a job interview. Hence this legislation.
To be fair, all Governments lobby on behalf of their domestic corporations - think of all the times that politicians from the ruling party in a country go to another country and negotiate trade agreements or highlight the products and services of their domestic companies to decision-making politicians of the host country.
Heck, if politicians DID NOT do this, they would probably be accused of not doing their jobs when going abroad. Indeed, this is one of the more common roles of most diplomatic ambassadors.
(As a case in point, and granted it is not about politicians but it is close enough, the British Royal yacht Britannia was funded by the British taxpayer. When a previous Government said they wanted to stop paying for Britannia, quite a few people in British industry objected because the Royal family often used the yacht as a lobbying tool for British businesses abroad).
Certainly, when the lobbying goes beyond the "our companies offer wonderful services/products, and we can arrange tax breaks that are passed on as discounts" or "build your new manufacturing facility in my back yard, and get some very favorable terms" to "if you do not do it our way, then we will make life hard for you" then that, for me, is something the politicians and companies need to be called out on, but that is not lobbying, that is making threats.