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.

25 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Not a pretty sight by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Extreme lobbying, such as employed in Iraq, etc., etc?

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Not a pretty sight by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Informative

      Extreme lobbying, such as employed in Iraq, etc., etc?

      Why is this marked as troll?
      U.S. has no jurisdiction or vote or representation in Europe. Any opposition to European laws thus consists of some unofficial threats, right?

      Nor is there a legitimate "political" reason. The only reason it might be happening is some companies (Facebook, etc.) are concerned about running into some customer-protection laws which are conveniently absent in U.S.

      The OP is not that far off.

    2. Re:Not a pretty sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you feel the same way about Piers Morgan advocating against our Second Amendment? He is not a U.S. citizen and he has no vote here. He may not be threatening extreme violence or such, but he is sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong.

      You silly nincompoop, can't you even see the difference between a government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, and a guy (a journalist) expressing his opinion ?

    3. Re:Not a pretty sight by PTBarnum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sovereign nations don't often let other countries dictate their policies, but they quite often listen to what other countries have to say about them. The article does not say that the US threatened the EC, it just says that the US is lobbying the EC. If one country is proposing to do something that another affects the interests of another country, the latter can and should lobby the former. Foreign companies and governments lobby the US government on a regular basis, this is just the reciprocal of that.

    4. Re:Not a pretty sight by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As the OP I am now forced to explain that I was being facetious. If you didn't get it, then I pity you.

      Nevertheless, there is a serious intent in highlighting that Americans seem to feel it is their god-given right to tell others how to run their business. This used to be great when Americans still believed in their own Bill of Rights and felt that the rest of the world would benefit from the same. But now they have been turned into sniveling cowards by a bunch of barbarians, they are happy to trample anything that sticks up.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    5. Re:Not a pretty sight by Zemran · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They have very good reason to feel threatened. If Europe starts to get its act together, American people may start to think that it is possible and demand the same.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    6. Re:Not a pretty sight by Larryish · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... the definition of a terrorist is someone who threatens others with violence in order to have their demands met.

      What if the terrorists wear badges?

    7. Re:Not a pretty sight by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Enough with the revisionism.

      *You* said "invade". Nobody else did.

      OP spoke of "unofficial threats", which is probably not far off the mark: "But if you make FB do this, they'll lose money. And this is bad for you, because...".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Not a pretty sight by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a difference between speaking out on another country's foreign policy, and heavily lobbing its government and private actors to push for what you want.

  2. It cuts both ways by pjt33 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:It cuts both ways by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...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.

      True, and in the pre-Internet days, it didn't matter very much if two different cultures weighed those two issues quite differently But it gets much more complicated when we're all connected. Suppose a European creates a Facebook account (hosted in the US) and later wants some information removed. Which country's laws should prevail? It gets even more interesting if it isn't a big international company like Facebook, but a small US-based blog site, that someone in a foreign nation chooses to participate in. Whose laws prevail then?

      The Internet is a wonderful thing, but difficulties do arise when different countries' approaches to freedom of speech differ, and both counties share the same global Internet.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:It cuts both ways by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      This concept is dealing with the right to be forgotten by computerized systems, not forgotten by humans.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    3. Re:It cuts both ways by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it gets much more complicated when we're all connected. Suppose a European creates a Facebook account (hosted in the US) and later wants some information removed. Which country's laws should prevail?

      Facebook has a HQ in Ireland, so the EU laws would apply
      The only out for Facebook is if the European citizen was in the USA when they created and updated the account...
      That's likely to be a vanishingly small percentage of facebook users.

      It gets even more interesting if it isn't a big international company like Facebook, but a small US-based blog site, that someone in a foreign nation chooses to participate in. Whose laws prevail then?

      That's not at all interesting.
      The European courts have no jurisdiction. End of conversation.
      Finer legal minds than ours have parsed issues like this for a couple decades now.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  3. Re:a little consistency by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Not so terrible free speech issues by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    But the copyright for a photograph belongs to the person who took the picture, not the person in the picture. (I recognize that in some cases, they may be the same person.) Suppose in the example given the picture wasn't taken by the person depicted with the beer bottle but by a third party, who gave consent to the second party to post the photo in her album which depicts the first party holding a beer bottle.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  5. Re:Fortunately by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Money money money by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Funny

    Our personal data is worth money to others. They don't want their money taken from them.

    No, no, you misunderstand. In reality Facebook is selflessly fighting for our rights to remember. They would allow you to delete the data, but they are concerned about freedom of expression being preserved. They said it right here:

    Facebook in particular has strong objections to the right to be forgotten, claiming it "raises many concerns with regard to the right of others to remember and to freedom of expression"

  7. Re:Fortunately by mill3d · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  8. When free speech of US citizens is directly affect by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. As an EU person by zennyboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)...

  10. As an American by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    /rant off

  11. Democracy by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:When free speech of US citizens is directly aff by similar_name · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:A clarifying example by Thiez · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  14. Re:When free speech of US citizens is directly aff by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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