European data protection laws explicitelly state, that consent to give away data protection cannot be condition to any contract and items of contracts containing such provisions are void.
If that's true, its news to me. Do you happen to know where this is mandated?
Oh, yes. Absolutely. It'd probably take something a little stronger than small print, but you're right. There is a reason that the US wanted it done surreptitiously though.
If you don't tell people what you're doing, fewer people will be able to make the informed decision that they don't trust you with their personal information and decide to head for Spain or Tunisia or New Zealand for their holidays instead.
I imagine that is exactly what will happen. But that's actually a good thing.
No-one can complain about informed consent. Explicitly informed consumers can then choose between handing their information to the US Government, or not visiting the US. That's the same decision they had before, but at least they'll now be informed that they're making it, and have to sign something showing that they've made it.
And insisting on informed consent will have knock-on effects to levels of tourism to the US, so the US Government will be aware that their paranoia and disregard for data privacy is not without an economic price.
Do you really, honestly think that anyone ever intends to get past the dictatorship of the proleteriat?
I've no doubt it was the intention of some. Rosa Luxembourg, for example, Tony Benn as another. Probably Marx and Engels, too. As good middle-class boys, they were prime candidates for the necessary level of idealism to believe that that would happen.
Why just the other day I heard the US president talking about the "Global War on Tourism".
At least I think that's what he said. I understand that to show his support for legal immigration, President Bush often pretends to struggle with the pronounciation of simple English words.
Consider the consequences of retaliatory action for US carriers. Airlines, and US airlines in particular are not exactly reknowned for their financial stability.
It's quite vague (standard law-talkin' guys strategy) so I could see it being read either way--entirely open ended!
No, its not. The principles are vague, Article 26 itself is pretty clear. It says that you can't transfer to third countries unless you can guarantee data protection up to the level of Directive 95/46/EC unless
(a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed transfer; or (b) the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the controller or the implementation of precontractual measures taken in response to the data subject's request; or (c) the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract concluded in the interest of the data subject between the controller and a third party; or (d) the transfer is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; or (e) the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or (f) the transfer is made from a register which according to laws or regulations is intended to provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in general or by any person who can demonstrate legitimate interest, to the extent that the conditions laid down in law for consultation" are fulfilled in the particular case.
Only (b) or (c) could possibly apply here, and the Court have decided they don't.
Which raises the question as to what specifically the EU courts find lacking in US data security.
The EU has strong legal protection for data privacy that the US simply lack. The default position in the EU is that no personal data may be shared between two parties without the explicit agreement of the person. Each member state has its own law, but certain principles are common to all, and further safeguards mean that data cannot be transferred outside the EU without similar guarantees.
While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP human rights.
There, fixed it for you.
I couldn't give a damn about Chinese IP rights, but this action is rather indicative of where the pressure from the West is being directed. Our governments don't care if the Chinese people are oppresssed, as long as our corporations aren't getting ripped off.
Even if they do win their infringement case against Apple, that behavior indicating intent to license is a matter of record.
All that indicates is that they're not certain that they'll win. Once they've won, what's the motivation for licensing?
There's no way in hell Creative, in this specific case, could get a blank check to shut down Apple's whole iPod business.
Wow. You're a particularly lousy pretend lawyer, because that's exactly what patent law says. If I have a patent, you're not allowed sell an infringing product, unless I say you can. If Creative have already won that battle, why would Creative not enforce this? Unless they desparately need quick cash, or are afraid of the counter suit, what's their motivation?
ZDNet say : OpenOffice is slow (will anyone refute this) MS say: OpenDocument is slow.
Folks, watch for the bait and switch. Those two statements don't mean the same thing. If you think OpenOffice is slow on ODF, you should see it open Word documents.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.
That was long on rhetoric and short on facts.
Oh, yes. Absolutely. It'd probably take something a little stronger than small print, but you're right. There is a reason that the US wanted it done surreptitiously though.
If you don't tell people what you're doing, fewer people will be able to make the informed decision that they don't trust you with their personal information and decide to head for Spain or Tunisia or New Zealand for their holidays instead.
Oh, yes. I agree completely. In fact, I've just made exactly this point to someone else somewhere else in this thread. :)
Yes.
I imagine that is exactly what will happen. But that's actually a good thing.
No-one can complain about informed consent. Explicitly informed consumers can then choose between handing their information to the US Government, or not visiting the US. That's the same decision they had before, but at least they'll now be informed that they're making it, and have to sign something showing that they've made it.
And insisting on informed consent will have knock-on effects to levels of tourism to the US, so the US Government will be aware that their paranoia and disregard for data privacy is not without an economic price.
It won't make any difference.
All that will happen is that US Immigration will ask you for the same 34 pieces of information, and refuse you entry if you don't supply them.
Why just the other day I heard the US president talking about the "Global War on Tourism".
At least I think that's what he said. I understand that to show his support for legal immigration, President Bush often pretends to struggle with the pronounciation of simple English words.
Consider the consequences of retaliatory action for US carriers.
Airlines, and US airlines in particular are not exactly reknowned for their financial stability.
ooops. Guess IP doesn't work at slashdot...
While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP human rights.
There, fixed it for you.
I couldn't give a damn about Chinese IP rights, but this action is rather indicative of where the pressure from the West is being directed. Our governments don't care if the Chinese people are oppresssed, as long as our corporations aren't getting ripped off.
I agree. Nothing says "inquisitive and intelligent free thinker" like putting on a uniform and marching up and down in lock step.
Wow. You're a particularly lousy pretend lawyer, because that's exactly what patent law says. If I have a patent, you're not allowed sell an infringing product, unless I say you can. If Creative have already won that battle, why would Creative not enforce this? Unless they desparately need quick cash, or are afraid of the counter suit, what's their motivation?
I recommend we commence immediately on Web 3.0, which is exactly like Web 2.0, only spelt differently.
ZDNet say : OpenOffice is slow (will anyone refute this)
:)
MS say: OpenDocument is slow.
Folks, watch for the bait and switch. Those two statements don't mean the same thing.
If you think OpenOffice is slow on ODF, you should see it open Word documents.
Because its Google, and Google is the only thing capable of giving CowboyNeal a hard-on.
That's a really good point.
OK Found one. Look at the texture of the monkey fur here: http://www.data-compression.com/image.shtml
Crikey, that was hard.