Slashdot Mirror
EU May Forbid the Transfer of Personal Data To the US
An anonymous reader writes: As the Snowden revelations have shown, personal data stored in the United States of America is not protected from the US government, be it through warrantless eavesdropping or national security letters. In light of this, the general attorney for the Court of Justice of the European Union has just issued an opinion requiring the US to be removed from the list of "safe harbors", where the transfer of personal data of European citizens is permitted. If the court follows his opinion, the change will have deep impact in the operations of large transnational Internet companies, between a US government that wants to keep on spying, and European authorities that will punish them if they let it happen.
The US needs to wake up to the fact that it doesn't set policy for the world, and that other jurisdictions have their own laws and regulations that US companies have to abide by if they want to do business there.
Enough with jackboot "treaties" that the US doesn't even try to abide by after signing them. :(
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Corporations don't comply with open European laws...... execs get fined (maybe)....
Corporations don't comply with secret U$A laws........ execs get "rendition" to Federal prison.
Which scenario do you think they'll choose ?
Cough, Germany, UK, etc. etc. Cough cough.
This is just more "Anti American Company" bullshit that parts of the EU pull every once in a while because they're mad all the big internet companies are in the US and stuff and not in the EU. Oh sure, the proposed purpose SOUNDS noble. Except plenty of countries in the EU already do the same thing they're protesting so loudly about. So really it has nothing to do with privacy, and everything to do with throwing a hissy fit that they don't have their own Apple or Facebook.
From the reuter article:
"If the United States doesn't change its laws in order to guarantee a minimum of data protection to European citizens, U.S. companies will have to process their data in the EU,"
Spot on.
The government of the United States of America has lost all credibility.
What once represented freedom for many now stands for oppression.
Why does the state need to spy on its own citizens?
Answer - to identify and stamp out dissent in order to preserve the status quo.
Time to go back to sleep sheeple..... Nothing to see here.
Nope, it's absolutely necessary for US companies to either be certified under the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, or otherwise demonstrate to the EU that they abide by those principles, in order to be allowed to transfer personal data to the US. Any other scenario would be a violation of the Data Protection Directive, because the USA doesn't provide adequate level of protection, and never has.
The problem is that the certification process is easier, and totally unreliable, especially when it comes to big fishes. The FTC hasn't shown any willingness to make any effort to enforce it significantly (FTC: "Are you complying to the Safe Harbor Principles?" Big Data: "Yes we are." FTC: "Good. Here's your certification."), making it de facto a vast scam.
There's nothing like $HOME
now since this move may hurt tech gaints' (from US) business, this will teach them a lesson on user privacy
Actually the companies dont need to show anything, a company can just transfer the data to the u.s if they want, if they are breeched or find that the data has been used to do some things that the treaty doesnt allow then the company might get shit for it, but thats about it and it is a big IF
Ironically, Snowden's own revelations indicated that the data would be more secure in the US than in Europe, since we collect foreign data with wild abandon, and still apply some limits to domestic surveillance.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
dammit. About half of our customers have a few employees in Europe. We mainly support US companies, but most of them have remote employees outside of the country. This might kill us. Thanks Obama.
Nope, it's illegal. The USA don't have sufficient data protection laws, therefore the transfer of personal data from the EU to the USA is prohibited by default (article 57 of 95/46/EC), with some exceptions (article 58 of 95/46/EC), unless particular measures are taken (article 59 of 95/46/EC).
There's nothing like $HOME
my bad, the company needs to atleast notify the commerce department about it and the company can self verify that they comply with the safe harbour\eu-rules
When who is as rich as who?
USA GDP: 16 trillion
EU GDP: 18 trillion
Since it has become public knowledge that US authorities can demand the "protected" data at any time, even from subsidiaries abroad, the value of any certification or demonstration is questionable.
That alone could end up making the Safe Harbor rules unusable for US companies, regardless of FTC enforcement. Depending on the EU court's ultimate decision of course.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The US isn't a safe place to store anyone's personal data. Never has been. The subtext/attitude has always been 'anything you give us is ours to do with as we please'. The irony here sadly is that "EU" includes the UK (for the time being at least) and here the GHCQ do whatever they like. There is no meaningful oversight nor will there ever be.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Shortly after the data protection rules in the EU were enacted, the EU Commission agreed to a shady compromise to avoid problems for the internet industry. This compromise is known as the Safe Harbour deal from 2000.
Today, the European Court of Justice is hearing a case where this practice is in dispute, and it may end with the Safe Harbour deal being ruled invalid. It would not be the first case where a law or international contract is found illegal after the fact.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The Safe Harbor rules have been under scrutiny for years. The EU is quite nonplussed about how they are enforced in the USA. So the stakes are if the treaty will be amended or if it will be nullified.
There's nothing like $HOME
Because the USA are more willing to collect?
IMHO US fines are not too high, other countries' fines are too low. If a company can make billions of profits by breaking the law and is fined only a fraction of those billions, it is the rational choice to
continue doing so. Only if the fines become higher than the illcit gains, we can expect them to have an effect.
This said, the EU is slowly waking up. A few years ago and after long forbearance, they finally fined Microsoft for their anti-competitive behavior in a way that (presumably) hurt.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Yes, we know the US didn't want to deal with another super power.
Dear USA Had you done what other non-European countries did, and get involved at the start of the wars instead of the ends, millions would have been spared. Instead, you continued to trade with Germany during the war and held back your support. Oh well, better late than never, I suppose.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Facebook almost certainly does some things with personal data about some EU citizens against their will. For example, by uploading the contents of users' phone books, it would be collecting personal data about everyone in those phone books, not just their owners. Because phone numbers are effectively unique IDs, and because Facebook appears to be collecting that data systematically from a large number of people, it would also be building a database about the social relationships of everyone in those phone books. It is now well established that Facebook could derive other potentially sensitive details about those people with a high probability of being correct based on that social graph.
Now consider that not everyone uses Facebook, and indeed some people actively choose not to because of privacy concerns, and there is clearly a concern about the legality of such a system in Europe.
If you're about to argue that it's not Facebook's fault and everyone shouldn't just upload their phone books and give up their friends'/family's/colleagues' details, then we next get into arguments about incitement/coercion and about misrepresentation, which are things the law typically takes a dim view of. It is also now well established that many people using these on-line services don't fully understand the implications for themselves or for others, and that sometimes people find the reality surprising and undesirable when it is fully explained to them.
In any case, it doesn't matter what the Facebook users themselves think in the scenario I've been discussing, because the people who didn't sign up are entitled to have their personal data protected under EU law regardless of what their friends do. That doesn't necessarily mean the data can't be used or shared, and there are certainly interesting ethical and legal questions when it comes to service providers that need some information to provide their service but operate at a scale that has deeper implications for privacy such as, say, Google Mail. But what Facebook reportedly does with personal data about individuals who didn't opt in seems pretty far towards the shady side of legal in Europe.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Yeah. Still perhaps the right thing to do at a moment in history where corporations are quickly annihilating what's left of democracy and state of right. For a case in point: does your representative know what's being negotiated "in your name" in some obscure international treaty (be it TTIP, CETA, TPP or whatever the current abomination is called)?
Likely he doesn't know. Which should be reason enough to reject the treaty come ratification time. But somehow I doubt that my (or your) representative has the balls to say "NO".
C - the footgun of programming languages
Your data is probably safer in the US than it is in the EU. European countries have spies too, you know...
At least, US citizens seem to make a big deal out of it and they are allowed to speak it out. In the EU, we don't need a Snowden to know that the government spies on us, yet, few people seem to care, of their control of the press is much more effective than in the US.
The U.S. government are nothing more than mega-corporate bitches. They should be shunned and marginalized
Bahahaha, you posted the GDP of a single country and compared it with the GDP of *Twenty Eight*
Yeah, except that didn't really happen.
Except that it did. Victoria Nuland admitted to $5B :
http://youtu.be/U2fYcHLouXY
the fact you used the word "unconstitutional" is what gives you away as a Russian shill
There was regime change without elections. You and I might consider this "just", given that the previous bunch were pretty corrupt, but it certainly wasn't "constitutional".
NATO doesn't make anyone join by force
That's right, and I don't think anonymous GP was arguing they do. But they do accept or deny membership bids, and accepting Poland and various other former East Bloc nations was a violation of the promises made when the cold war ended.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
No, but the British Prime Minister apparently does. You should catch up on current affairs some time.
Wrong, EU comprised of quite separate countries with sovereign governments, any one of which can be forced to leave by the others under certain conditions. Nothing like the articles of confederation at all.
Yes those 28 countries with 508 Million people have close to the GDP of the worlds single superpower with its 326 million people. That's nice. Maybe sum up the rest of the world's GDP while your at it and claim the non-US produces more than the US. Doesn't change things, U.S.A. is the pitcher and any other country or group of countries is the bitch.