[hluska]

Five Eyes is (or was, as its status is undetermined) an intelligence sharing agreement between the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Each nation has to abide by its own constitution and intelligence gathering limits. For example, the United States generally refrains from sharing intelligence on American citizens with other Five Eyes partners. Canada generally won’t share information on people who only hold Canadian citizenship, etc.

Couldn’t you have googled that?

[AnthonyMouse]

The poster knows the answer. It was a rhetorical question. Five Eyes is the thing countries with "constitutional protections" use to cheat their way around those protections. The US isn't allowed to spy on US citizens without a warrant but the other countries can do it and then provide the results to the US and vice versa.

And if they're going to be allowed to cheat then why hasn't the cheating done any good?

[eagleal]

I personally take issue with this because it can be used by the USA to effectively target data protected under EU's GDPR, because the US has an agreement with Israel to send and share raw, non minimized, sigint without going through legal loopholes to sign proper consents within the US Agencies chain of command as required by the 2023 EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.

I understand the US' companies and the War in Ukraine made a lot of pressure on EU's lawmakers, but the lawmakers basically nullified the scope of GDPR (military side, in a world where being able to control domestic SIGINT is king), and made EU' domestic companies unable to compete against foreign ones with one single decision (economic side).

It was just irresponsible.

[FirmwareBurner]

What kind of power and leverage does the EU have in cases like these to say 'NO'?

[eagleal]

Force removal from Mobile App Stores, make EU companies avoid implementing their Pixels or Services or face fines, etc.

2022-2023 for example a lot of companies removed their Analytics and Pixels js, because some EU members agencies (Spain and Italy to be precise) started making pilot cases against domestic companies.

It did work though, EU companies could either take an enourmous cost to properly implement these (ie. by local proxy sending only minimized data) or remove them in favor of EU tracking companies. A lot of similar suits followed with cases against Meta.

By 2023 it was clear the EU would make a political deal with the US so companies restored the defaults, without making the necessary anonymization changes.

[FpUser]

Judging by recent display of ass licking it does not look like the EU has any say in a matter