[boshomi]

»Max Schrems: "In the long run we either need proper protections in the US, or we will end up with separate products for the US and the EU. I would personally prefer better protections in the US, but this is up to the US legislator - not to anyone in Europe."«

That's the point: we need real data protection in US law for non-US citizens as well. Currently, US lawmakers treat EU citizens' data as US state property. Obviously, that's unfair.

[tut-urut-utut]

> I would personally prefer better protections in the US, but this is up to the US legislator - not to anyone in Europe.

I don't agree that Europe can't change anything in that regard. Deeming US-based services illegal and banning US-based companies doing business in Europe because of the way EU-customer data is treated in the US would speed up better regulations in the US tremendously.

It's a fact that big corporations are ready to bend over backwards to the foreign governments, even when they require "immoral" [1] things, so they would have no problem complying with actual sensible requests [2] if they are forced to do it.

[1] Chinese censorship rules, ... [2] Data protection, ...

[kilburn]

> banning US-based companies doing business in Europe because of the way EU-customer data is treated in the US would speed up better regulations in the US tremendously

Maybe it would, or maybe it would spur a tariff-war between the EU and US and a great deal of resentment between traditional allies.

> they would have no problem complying with actual sensible requests

Morality and sensibility don't play a role in modern big corps. The real question is: do these requirements impact their bottom line? Chinese censorship rules don't, but EU's data protection rules clearly do. Hence, their willingness to comply will adjust accordingly (i.e.: US corps will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening).

[thinkindie]

> I don't agree that Europe can't change anything in that regard. Deeming US-based services illegal and banning US-based companies doing business in Europe because of the way EU-customer data is treated in the US would speed up better regulations in the US tremendously.

I think it would do way more damage on the EU side than anything. Imagine having to migrate applications overnight because hosting with AWS has been outlawed, even with all the protections in place (e.g. location in EU, encryption etc etc).

[gampleman]

Overnight is rather exaggerated.

GDPR (which the above case is about) was approved in 2016, became enforceable in 2018, the major legal case that provided that kind of interpretation landed in 2020, and now a concrete (very high profile) enforcement is actually happened in 2022.

[Aerroon]

>or we will end up with separate products for the US and the EU.

I thought this was the goal the EU was working towards. There was even that policy recommendation for building a firewall similar to the Chinese one. It didn't amount to much, but we seem to be going down a path like that.

Why would the US listen to the EU on this topic though? EU countries are trying to use privacy as a way to limit the reach of these US companies, but we don't have anything comparable to replace them with. Those US news sites that blocked EU visitors? They're still blocked and you can't really blame them - they don't make much money from advertising to European users, so why take the risk and cost of implementing GDPR? I understand it, but parts of the internet are still unavailable to me. And I don't seem to have any more privacy anyway.

Data protection is good, but at this point I find it difficult to believe that this is the actual goal of EU politicians.

[nmehner]

Read up on Schrems II. This policy is actually based on a court's decision not on a decision of politicians. Politicians actually tried to save data transfer with the "Privacy Shield".

"The CJEU ruled that the Privacy Shield does not provide adequate protection, and invalidated the agreement. The court also ruled that European data protection authorities must stop transfers of personal data made under the standard contractual clauses by companies, like Facebook, subject to overbroad surveillance. This decision has significant implications for U.S. Companies and for the U.S. Congress because it calls into question the adequacy of privacy protection in the United States."

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems

[JAlexoid]

That's unfair assessment.

While I find it hard to believe that European countries are that much more privacy focused... the reason for the divide is that European countries, in or outside of EU, have stricter rules on user data... and much more recourse for users.

Having those rules creates an advantage for any company that doesn't operate by those rules while serving people located in the countries covered by those rules. The goal was never to "limit the reach of US companies", but to prevent uneven playing field.(EU was specifically created to keep markets competitive)

What's worse is that US government, that is legally barred from snooping on people in US, says that data of people not physically present on US soil is fair game to do as they wish.

[hansvm]

> Currently, US lawmakers treat EU citizens' data as US state property. Obviously, that's unfair.

The unstated assumption being that the data in question belongs to those citizens.

If I write about an orchard, the writing doesn't somehow belong to that orchard. If I photograph a wedding the copyright is still held by me. It's not obvious if we're instead talking about a name or an email address that the subject of your data should magically become the owner.

[MomoXenosaga]

The reality is that privacy in the US isn't the same as it is in the EU. Making these kind of deals with the US or China will always fail.

Ultimately there's nothing to stop the US from wiping it's ass with any treaty- that's the major advantage of being a superpower. America lives by different values as is their right.

Yes we need to silo the EU from the US.

[sandstrom]

The US is a large power compared to any individual European country. But for example Microsoft about as much money in the EU than in the US.

[Cederfjard]

Sorry, I think you missed an important word there - how much do they make in the EU compared to US?

[MomoXenosaga]

The EU was specifically founded because European politicians were acutely aware that divided they would fall against the US/USSR.

We are at a crossroads: remain independent or try to get as good a deal from the US as we can like Hawaii did.

[dncornholio]

The Americans should use this to pressure the government in fixing their surveillance laws.

[meepmorp]

I recognize that this is merely my impression of the matter, but I don't think most Americans are that concerned about it. I very much doubt that enough are sufficiently concerned to convince enough politicians to do something about it.

[dncornholio]

I don't know. It's kind of worrying that you can't host EU data in US isn't it?

[meepmorp]

Not as much if you're in the EU, I guess. But, yeah, it's not the best feeling as an American.