Nope, the real motivation is compliance to EU laws, like every company has to. Companies who believe they can fully own data about EU citizens and do whatever they want with it are in for a lot of trouble, whatever their nationality. European companies, and even governments, have been condemned too.
One way I can see to make things cheaper is to use the Interplanetary Transport Network to ship the bulk of the material needed for a settlement. But I'm quite sure someone better qualified than I am already took this possibility into account. The ITN has already been used to send probes, after all.
IMHO, there's room for the first and the second, in a sufficiently large structure. Lorraine Steyn is the owner of a small software company, there isn't much room for a non-technical manager in such a context. In general, at least: some successful companies started with the association of a good manager and a tech genius, but they were usually friends.
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.
As long as the collection of data has a legitimate purpose and is limited to what is strictly necessary for fulfilling said purpose, and the safeguards are properly (and demonstrably) applied, there shouldn't be a problem.
As employees who wish to retain our employment contracts, we have no opt-out option.
Anonymous denunciation to the geographically relevant data protection agency. Opt-out is mandatory. Data may only be collected for a legitimate purpose that must be explicitly justified. Every database holding personal informations must be declared to the data protection agency so it can check for compliance.
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).
The certification may not be necessary, but then they need to prove they're abiding to those principles anyway. It would actually be a great idea to get rid of the certification process, because it doesn't work.
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.
It doesn't matter. What is illegal on EU ground will be prosecuted based on EU rules. If Google can't comply with it, it has no place doing business in the EU.
This isn't just about Google, ALL companies wishing to operate in Europe and hold personal data fall under the exact same set of rules, it's only Google that seems to have a problem with it for whatever reason.
I agree with your general sentiment but this is factually false: Facebook is also under heavy scrutiny. Both Facebook and Google have been suspected for a long time of a major crime: assuming that the data they collected about their users somehow belonged to them, which is totally preposterous.
In jurisdiction where settlements are possible (basically only the USA) you don't want to piss off the public minister by dragging on the issue more than necessary.
In other jurisdictions, you don't want to piss off the judge by dragging on the case, because by doing so you are abusing a scarce resource: the time of the judicial system. They will give you shit for that, and rightfully so.
Fines are a punishment, which is at least partially about deterrence. Therefore adjusting a fine to the revenue is in no way absurd. You can disagree with it on some theoretical ground, but it's not absurd in terms of practical application of law. Finland does it for traffic violations among other things.
I know the headline is misleading, but it's not about France, but the whole of the EU. The French CNIL has been put in charge of handling the case on behalf of all similar agencies in the EU (there isn't a EU-wide agency for data protection).
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, the real motivation is compliance to EU laws, like every company has to. Companies who believe they can fully own data about EU citizens and do whatever they want with it are in for a lot of trouble, whatever their nationality. European companies, and even governments, have been condemned too.
There are separate agreements for those. They haven't been challenged yet.
You're aware you have no obligation to follow morons, are you?
I fail to see how JRE factors in this.
Polluting the electromagnetic spectrum is an idiotic solution in general.
One way I can see to make things cheaper is to use the Interplanetary Transport Network to ship the bulk of the material needed for a settlement. But I'm quite sure someone better qualified than I am already took this possibility into account. The ITN has already been used to send probes, after all.
IMHO, there's room for the first and the second, in a sufficiently large structure. Lorraine Steyn is the owner of a small software company, there isn't much room for a non-technical manager in such a context. In general, at least: some successful companies started with the association of a good manager and a tech genius, but they were usually friends.
An agreement has been signed. The USA refuse to be serious about enforcing it.
Bullshit. Safe Harbour is all about US companies. EU companies aren't concerned, for obvious reasons.
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.
As long as the collection of data has a legitimate purpose and is limited to what is strictly necessary for fulfilling said purpose, and the safeguards are properly (and demonstrably) applied, there shouldn't be a problem.
As employees who wish to retain our employment contracts, we have no opt-out option.
Anonymous denunciation to the geographically relevant data protection agency. Opt-out is mandatory. Data may only be collected for a legitimate purpose that must be explicitly justified. Every database holding personal informations must be declared to the data protection agency so it can check for compliance.
Nope, it's the EU requiring companies to comply with its laws when they exert their activities in the EU.
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).
The certification may not be necessary, but then they need to prove they're abiding to those principles anyway. It would actually be a great idea to get rid of the certification process, because it doesn't work.
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.
It doesn't matter. What is illegal on EU ground will be prosecuted based on EU rules. If Google can't comply with it, it has no place doing business in the EU.
This isn't just about Google, ALL companies wishing to operate in Europe and hold personal data fall under the exact same set of rules, it's only Google that seems to have a problem with it for whatever reason.
I agree with your general sentiment but this is factually false: Facebook is also under heavy scrutiny. Both Facebook and Google have been suspected for a long time of a major crime: assuming that the data they collected about their users somehow belonged to them, which is totally preposterous.
By this reasoning, a corporation can run a drug ring as a complement to its legit revenue and can get away with it scots-free.
As soon as possible.
In jurisdiction where settlements are possible (basically only the USA) you don't want to piss off the public minister by dragging on the issue more than necessary.
In other jurisdictions, you don't want to piss off the judge by dragging on the case, because by doing so you are abusing a scarce resource: the time of the judicial system. They will give you shit for that, and rightfully so.
Fines are a punishment, which is at least partially about deterrence. Therefore adjusting a fine to the revenue is in no way absurd. You can disagree with it on some theoretical ground, but it's not absurd in terms of practical application of law. Finland does it for traffic violations among other things.
It won't hurt either, contrary to preposterous denial.
I know the headline is misleading, but it's not about France, but the whole of the EU. The French CNIL has been put in charge of handling the case on behalf of all similar agencies in the EU (there isn't a EU-wide agency for data protection).
Any competent lawyer will tell you that it's better to confess when you are caught red-handed.
USA has the most stringent diesel emissions requirements on the planet
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
California has the most stringent requirements in the USA, and the requirements in the EU are even more strict.