Slashdot Mirror
US Activists Oppose US Govt Calls To Weaken EU Privacy Rules
judgecorp writes "The European Commission has proposals for data privacy (including the 'right to be forgotten') and the U.S. government is opposing them. Now U.S. activists have arrived in Brussels to lobby against their government's opposition to the European measures. The move comes following reports of 'extreme' lobbying by U.S. authorities against the European proposals."
Although the "right to be forgotten" raises some free speech issues, it doesn't seem like a bad idea in principle.
Extreme lobbying, such as employed in Iraq, etc., etc?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
...the "right to be forgotten" raises some free speech issues...
is one way to look at it, but the other way to look at it is that free speech raises some privacy issues. As the Stanford Law Review article recognises, there's a tension between the two and different cultures choose to give them different weights. That doesn't make either culture right or wrong.
Our personal data is worth money to others. They don't want their money taken from them.
"But the right to delete data becomes far more controversial when it involves Fleischerâ(TM)s second category: âoeIf I post something, and someone else copies it and re-posts it on their own site, do I have the right to delete it?â Imagine a teenager regrets posting a picture of herself with a bottle of beer on her own site and after deleting it, later discovers that several of her friends have copied and reposted the picture on their own sites. If she asks them to take down the pictures, and her friends refuse or cannot be found, should Facebook be forced to delete the picture from her friendsâ(TM) albums without the ownersâ(TM) consent based solely on the teenagerâ(TM)s objection?"
If Universal posts the latest Spiderman movie and I re-post it, they can have it taken down. This is just normal copyright and that's not limited to big companies or rich people.
] Finally, there is Fleischerâ(TM)s third category of takedown requests: âoeIf someone else posts something about me, do I have a right to delete it?â This, of course, raises the most serious concerns about free expression. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states cannot pass laws restricting the media from disseminating truthful but embarrassing informationâ"such as the name of a rape victimâ"as long as the information was legally acquired.
The proposed European regulation, however, treats takedown requests for truthful information posted by others identically to takedown requests for photos Iâ(TM)ve posted myself that have then been copied by others: both are included in the definition of personal data as âoeany information relatingâ to me, regardless of its source. I can demand takedown and the burden, once again, is on the third party to prove that it falls within the exception for journalistic, artistic, or literary exception.
This one sucks and shouldn't be there. Obviously people should be able to talk about others even if it's not journalism or art.
Generally, I think the questions on what's ok and what's not have been solved in law long before the Internet existed. This is just about spelling out how hosters should deal with takedown notices etc.
Wait... so today it's OK for people to be in control of what happens to their data?
But step back a few stories and when it's a song or movie, it's no longer up to the person who created it whether it ends up copied all around the world for free, and they have no right to stop other people from copying it?
I think the point of this discussion is that European Commission gets to decide on laws in Europe. And U.S. should pretty much stay out of it. This is completely irrespective of what actual rules are being considered.
This is a little different because the EU is not [yet] a major wrongdoer with respect to privacy. The protest is more to bolster their nerve against heavy pressure from the US govt (a ne'er-do-well).
It enables the EU commissioners to say "The US is divided on this issue of privacy, with the govt saying one thing yet important people and organisations dissent)." So they get to do what they want anyways.
The fear the US may have is that at some point down the road the EU may try to go after US companies to force them to obey its rules. It's one thing to say "Facebook.de must delete every evidence of a user's existence upon their request", but what happens if the EU is trying to say "Facebook.com must delete every evidence of a user's existence upon their request."
Beyond that, there are some limits to how far you could ever apply this "forget me" notion. I'm sitting in North America, running a listserv that has people from the US, Canada, Europe, a couple of Asian countries and Australia on it. The listserv has an archive dating back to about 2002 and there are copies of that archive all over the bloody place. If I suddenly were faced with requests from my European users to start deleting every post they made, it would be an arduous and ultimate futile process. We'd be talking about deleting not only their posts, but posts that contain excerpts from their posts. Worst of all, it would ruin the continuity of the archive, which may be of significant value (I've found myself going back several years to hunt down information).
Obviously this law is targeted at Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. But what it ultimately comes to encompass is ludicrous, and I sure hope that the US, where my stuff is based, does not go down such an extremist road.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If I could trust the government to be smart about the rules they make, and to really understand web technology, the new restrictions might seem mildly attractive. Given the general incompetence of government, I think it best that slashdot decides how slashdot handles login, cookies, etc.
The US and anyone else has every right to be lobbying the EU. The EU doesn't have to agree or even listen, but everyone has a right to state his position.
Since these companies are based in Ireland for tax purposes, that might indeed end up happening...
On the other hand, that could also force said companies' tax dollars back into the US which wouldn't hurt at this point...
Nothing is enough for whom enough is too little - Confucius
Yeah, and we all know what "lobbying" means in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
Har, har. Problem is, those comments, pictures, or anything you post on there, never actually are deleted. Facebook kind of removes them from public view (I say kind of, because due to glitches or just plain stupid ass over-sight on new features, or hell maybe it is on purpose), but they are still on their servers. Unless it is enforced at the company level (and eve then...) you will never have any right to be forgotten. This is probably my biggest reason for never signing up for facebook or myspace. Call me paranoid, but I like my privacy and the only way to enforce my will on my own data is to keep it from people and corporations like this.
As proposed, Slashdot (a US company) could be forced to delete posts made by US citizens, if those posts mention someone in the EU. That's a legitimate concern. Had this law been in place before, Mussoluni's "right to be forgotten" would mean he could order Facebook to delete any posts critical of him.
Say, if Hitler were still alive, or the internet existed and these proposals were in effect at the time, what could he legitimately request under these proposals? It's a little hazy understanding what the implications of these proposals are; does the benefit of hindsight and a well-known example make it any clearer what rights are provided and what's feasible under these circumstances?
Godwin...
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Since these companies are based in Ireland for tax purposes, that might indeed end up happening...
On the other hand, that could also force said companies' tax dollars back into the US which wouldn't hurt at this point...
Fat lot of good that would do, they hardly pay any taxes at all...
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The European Commission has proposals for data privacy (including the 'right to be forgotten') and the U.S. government is opposing them.
U.S. has no actual vote or authority in Europe. Or should not, anyway.
WTF is the U.S. even coming from here, opposing laws in sovereign countries (that are not at all easy to invade)
The point of having an ambassador is to tell foreign countries when things impacting your nation in some fashion against your interests are doing so. The US has every right, and, to its citizens, an obligation, to 'lobby' the EU in its interests. The EU has every right to ignore it, too, of course.... if you're an EU citizen and disagree, don't complain to us, just lobby your own government even more powerfully. The US government doesn't begin to have the resources to outlobby a united EU populace.
I still stand by what I was going to say: I'm embarrassed at my government and it seems that, no matter who you elect, they go do what they want. I'm sure this isn't news to any of you (or me) , but as an American, I'm just really sick and tired of it.
That said, it occurs to me--and not to any of you, surprisingly--that these multi-national, world-wide corporations may be based here in the USA, but they could be located anywhere, and typically have offices everywhere at that. With the exception of defense contractors, any of these companies could move anywhere in the world they wished, if they so chose. They don't for a reason: because the laws here favor these corporations over just about everything else--in this particular case, privacy laws. (Or should we say, lack thereof?)
Despite all its problems, Europe is rich and these corporations know it. Companies that depend on advertising like Google need some privacy taken away in order for their pricier targeted ads to function. (Note: I am *NOT* advocating any of this!) And then there's Facebook, who's whole business model revolves around stripping your privacy away. For what ever reason, they can't buy off these European politicians, so they're doing the next best thing and using the ones they already bought off here. This isn't really news as corporations here do this all the time: witness ADM and the sugar tariff, for example. The news is that they're being so public about it and the backlash is growing.
Personally, I hope the backlash makes its way here, but so far it has been very muted.
It might even be enough to prompt a major "recall" of US companies, in which case it might become interesting. On top of that, bringing HQs back would also help employment as well.
A bucket is filled with many drops, is it not?
Nothing is enough for whom enough is too little - Confucius
Inviting lots of opinions to a complicated issues is an excellent idea and creates additional insight into the implementation and practical problems that may occur with the laws. There's no reason to ignore an opinion just because it's an opposing opinion. Rather, opposing opinions can bring the most insight information from people that think differently. Europe doesn't have to agree with the US, but the opinions and insight of the US can be very useful.
I've seen more good rulings come out of EU than the US. With no in-depth information on a subject, I would more trust the EU with my person (/personal information) than the US (Government/US companies)...
Politicians are always this and that http://www.cusabio.com/pro_11.html
You would then be encouraged to say whatever you wanted. The SS would then send for you...
Nice Godwin, by the way.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I really wish we would adopt the European standards on privacy. This is one area where I freely admit the Euro's are doing things right and we are blatantly being ass backwards about things.
They posted to a publicly readable list server. I'm not going to go through 50k messages when they knew full well it was archived.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Another practical example of how undemocratic the EU became: no need to lobby elected Members of European Parliament, just lobby the unelected European Commission. I got the feeling that a single US lobbyist weight more on UE politics than any number of EU citizens.
I'm completely on the pro "data privacy" side of this debate, and I agree that the official US stance tends to be bullying. But it seems to me that the "US government has no business lobbying European government" argument leaves something important out. A government has a responsibility to its citizens to enforce or at least encourage fair trade practices. If Britons, for example, decide they want high protective tariffs, then certainly that is their right. But then US trade policy may need to be adjusted accordingly. To avoid a trade war, both nations need to understand how the other perceives and is likely to react to changes. Suppose the US delegation says, "if you implement policy X, that will dramatically increase the cost of American products in your country, in which case we're likely not going to be able to continue giving your products preferred treatment in the US." Is that a threat? If so its a completely reasonable one. And in cases when one nation exports a product that the second nation doesn't for the most part export, the first nation needs to represent the interests of the industries that are important to it.
The US government is more at the call of big money than it should be. And it needs to be more respectful of other nation's integrity and choices, and more concerned with fairness, with less of a 'might makes right' approach. But it still needs to communicate on behalf of US economic interests, since protecting those interests is one of the first responsibilities of government.
post publicly, I fully expect the public can see it. If I don't want it seen, I don't post it.
Sorry, to clarify -- assuming he was no longer in power.
I'm so glad the EU is doing something right and we're standing up to unhealthy US corporate practices.
The right to be forgotten is a brilliant idea. I know, I had it myself.
Who gains? The people.
Who loses? Companies whose business model is to whore our data.
Obviously, this right could only be invoked if the invoker was not in debt to the data-holding company. Likewise, the data-holding company can not be held responsible for consequences of missing data.
There are also some subtleties. Should eg FB be obliged to remove all content Shared from a 'forgotten' user? Should Google be obliged to delete any data associated with an IP you used at a certain time?
Regardless, this is a brilliant idea and the free world should be pushing hard for it if they want to remain free.
Because they pay taxes to Ireland. If they payed taxes on income they kept in the states, they would pay a hell of a lot more taxes on it.
How would Slashdot be forced? Why would a European law have jurisdiction in the U.S.? I suppose the EU could begin blocking sites that don't comply. Some sort of Great Firewall of Europe I suppose.
As I recall, when he was no longer in power he was also dead. I think this limits the possibility of requesting information to be deleted somewhat.
Please note that in the foregoing post, "everyone" is used as a polite euphemism for "gun nuts".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
is to end the illusion that people are perfect.
Because slashdot is owned by Dice Holdings, and Dice Holdings does business in the EU? If they fail to comply they can be fined, assets seized, etc etc.?
IOW, you post nothing of value that merits preservation. And you enjoy fucking up your friends' discussions.
Thanks for making these things clear to us.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
On the whole, regulations coming from the EU are reasonable and well thought out. A lot of that comes about because the EU is a big club without a single dominant influence.
It is true that there are older regulations (such as the CAP) which were initially designed in the days when the common market was very much smaller and tend to favour some countries over others. CdG knew what he was doing when he wouldn't let Britain join the CM in the late 60s.
What this regulation will probably end up requiring is that companies that store data linked to an account will have to delete that information at the behest of the account holder.
The individual countries governments when they implement such a directive will, in some cases, gold plate the requirements and will blame the EU if there is any backlash. For example, they may claim that anonymous users are no longer allowed when the EU regulation has nothing at all to say about anonymous users.
Tim.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
In this case, you have to balance the right of the public to know with the right of the person to stay private. Hitler would be considered a "person of public interest", and thus the right for the public to know would prevail. It's basicly the same with current journalism. You can't put an article in a journal about your neighbour with full name and address, and detailling every step he takes, free speech issues be damned. And EU data privacy laws just do the same for data. There are other rights that are present in the offline world for a long time (right to the own picture, covering for instance pictures others take of you), and the "right to be forgotten" is just an online version of the same rights.
They are asking the facebook company. If the facebook company has a commercial presence in EU , then they better obey the law and court order. Again, as all in those discussion you have to separate the web site, to the company. The court order are going to the company where it has presence. It does not matter afterward if the web page is chaos.ru or texas.us, the company has to obey the court order because of its commercial rpesenc in EU. naturally if facebook is ready to abandon completely the EU market that's another story.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As proposed, Slashdot (a US company) could be forced to delete posts made by US citizens, if those posts mention someone in the EU.
NO. That is absolutely NOT what the right to be forgotten is about.
The right will give an individual to have THEIR data removed from sites. Data that they themselves uploaded, such as posts they made or photos they shared. If you see one of those photos and decide to write a blog post about it then your blog is perfectly safe and won't be covered by this right.
The right to be forgotten is not about purging information about yourself from the internet, it is about having companies delete your data when asked to. That means if you delete your Facebook profile it really is deleted, and Facebook can't carry on displaying your photos to other people or displaying your name in search results or store information about you any more. If other people post on their wall mentioning your name there is nothing you can do about it, beyond the usual legal protections against libel etc.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yeah, we know the EU would never lobby in the US. Seriously, get a clue. You don't want our lobbyists, we don't want yours, hell, we don't want ours either. But, is the playing field really tilted? And, don't give me the crap about the Lockheed bribery scandals...there's plenty of bribery on both sides of the pond.
Just another day in Paradise
There used to be a "right" to be forgotten in the US.
People used to move a couple states away to reset the clock.
But, sadly, we sold out to the former Reichsmarshals of the world.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You should read the proposals, because apparently you only skimmed them. Yes, category 3 does include data about you, but only data collected by companies for commercial purposes. To be absolutely clear a newspaper article about your criminal behaviour would not be subject to removal. Blog posts about you would not be subject to removal. Only data collected for purposes like creating an online profile or establishing a business relationship.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What you describe could happen to a mailing list based in the EU, just like it could happen to a mailing list in the US due to a DMCA take-down request.
Clearly the law would only apply to companies with a presence in Europe, like Facebook. It is the same as how YouTube has to respond to copyright or legal rulings under EU law because it does business in the EU and would be subject to fines and other sanctions if it didn't.
Companies with nothing to do with Europe won't be affected, just like how EU companies with nothing to do with the US can ignore DMCA take-down requests.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It will work similarly to DMCA take-down requests. Only affects companies with interests in the EU, failure to comply will open them up to being sued and hit with fines.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC