There been mumblings for as long as I've been a developer, I remember hearing about "EU data independence" first when the ePrivacy Directive came around, which must have been multiple decades ago at this point.
But yeah, in recent times the sentiment became more urgent. If I were to guess, with zero data in front of me and just judging by what I remember, I think the sentiment really changed first with the ICC blockade that happened last year, then it got really fueled on by the US threats to Greenland's sovereignty, I think that's when organizations and people really got stressed out about moving ASAP.
Around me, the threat to Greenland is what kicked the plans from “okay what mitigations should we envision?” to “alright, let’s go as far to actually run shadow ops to get acquainted with …” to full on move after the invasion.
Trump may genuinely end up being the best salesman European hosting companies ever had. I run one of the tools mentioned in this post (Bugsink) and I literally had an uptick of Danish people/companies (specifically) reaching out to me after Davos.
As someone who've basically started being known as "The guy who helps you move data out of US to Europe" in certain circles, I'm not complaining either :)
Yes, that was the thing that set off all the alarms. Trump 1 said a lot of things but had not completed the Hungary-fication of the US. Trump 1 was also before the Ukraine war!
I feel like the concern started getting popularised during the first Trump administration, because the US were overtly bullying the EU (and others of course). But the main change was that it was done overtly: before that the US has always been a big power trying to... say "defend the interests of the US" abroad. E.g. the US have been spying their allies forever. So I think it was more of a "they should stop bullying us in a few years", and indeed it went back to normal with Biden (again, "defending the interests of the US" and "leveraging their dominant position", which was kind of accepted).
The second Trump administration moved from "overtly bullying" to "behaving like a potential threat". In the second Trump administration, the US has used the tech monopolies against the EU and has become a military threat (not to mention the commercial war with tariffs). For many Europeans, it's not that the US are abusing their dominant position in negotiations anymore: it's that they are not an ally anymore. Not that they are seen as an enemy, but rather an unreliable partner who threatened to become an enemy.
I think that this is a very big shift, and that is why things are actually moving. And I don't think that this will change, because the risk of depending on the US monopolies has now materialised. That cannot be undone.
If even all the shenanigans from the US administration and essentially it threatening to invade European territory did not result in European companies and governments finally doing something about their digital sovereignty, then nothing but a declaration of war would.
Possibly, yeah. The thing is, there is a lot of inertia in Europe, because it is a union of 27 countries. It's not that one election can change it all.
Trump 2 is worse than Trump 1 by far from EU perspective. And it also proved that it wasn't a once-off that Americans will vote in someone who threatens to dismantle NATO, invade Greenland, or start trade wars with allies for no reason.
Also Trump 2 proves without a doubt that at least half of the american voters are absolutely insane or incredibly stupid. For 1 there used to be some doubt.
We in Europe are enjoying roughly 15-20% insane/stupid ratings at this point, which is not great but still a bit better.
The algorithm/method of vote determines a large part of the political landscape (and in the US, only 2 significant political parties can realistically exist. People have to choose between those 2 and lot choose to abstain).
The question wasn't which "team" (grow up!) is "dominant," it was whether the election result proves anything about the American public. It does if you think it was an honest and fair election. Simple as that.
Let's face it. Trump 2 is about dismantling democracy. The administration radiates hostility and aggression to anything democratic. In the new national security policy the EU is the adversary of the US. If that isn't a wake-up call.
Seems strange to me that not everyone, including republicans, aren't aware of this, when he's pretty outspoken about not wanting any more elections, and how "if you vote for me this time, it'll be the last time you have to vote".
If a presidential candidate anywhere else was openly talking about wanting to remove elections and democracy in the country (not to mention triggered an insurrection [?!]), I'm fairly sure they'd almost be automatically disqualified. Really strange situation all around.
Sources for those quotes would be very helpful for anyone interested in this, because I’ve certainly never heard this before.
We’re two years into his term and democracy does not appear to be dismantled, or even remotely at risk of being dismantled. I also expect the same or similar accusations to be leveled at the next Republican candidate, who if elected, will also not “dismantle democracy”.
> We’re two years into his term and democracy does not appear to be dismantled, or even remotely at risk of being dismantled. I also expect the same or similar accusations to be leveled at the next Republican candidate, who if elected, will also not “dismantle democracy”.
I'm not American, I dislike Democrats and Republicans in the US, they're both horrible, just to preface this. Secondly, no other president has urged people to vote for them so people don't have to vote ever again, nor has any president threatened to put previous presidents in jail, nor has any president talked about wanting to skip the mid-terms.
I dislike politicians in general, but also, I'd be blind to not see when someone is extremely dangerous to democracy in general, beyond political affiliations. I'd say the same if it was Obama or who else, because as I said, I don't like any of them.
He hasn’t said what the parent said he did, and in the peer comment linking a video of him saying something similar, the context supplies quite a different meaning than was implied above.
>Seems strange to me that not everyone, including republicans, aren't aware of >this, when he's pretty outspoken about not wanting any more elections, and how >"if you vote for me this time, it'll be the last time you have to vote".
1) Puerto Ricans were called publicly on a Trump rally in New York, an "island of garbage" and they massively voted for Trump.
- Second generation Latinos, whose many parents, and grand parents and other close family are illegal immigrants, were repeatedly warned of what would happen, and its one of the constitutions, that massively voted for Trump...
- Trump continued to state, as late as 2024,that the Central Park Five were responsible for the 1989 rape of a woman in the Central Park jogger case, despite the five males having been officially exonerated in 2002.
- Trump was a leading proponent of the debunked birther conspiracy theory falsely claiming president Barack Obama was not born in the United States
- Trump and his company Trump Management were sued by the Department of Justice for housing discrimination against African-American renters.
Donald Trump made big gains with Black voters in 2024.
- Trump is a convicted rapist and felon, and is known 44 million women voted for him...
We are past strange, and we are in the phase of electorate deserves what they voted for.
If you find yourself with a view of reality that massively differs from others, you have two options.
(1) Assume they’re irrational, uninformed, and wrong, or
(2) Reconsider your priors and attempt to understand why they think the way that they do.
Let’s take the “island of garbage”. It was said by a comedian during his set. The Trump campaign stated “this joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign”.
The way that you framed it, however, was very careful to be true while also being misleading.
I think the viral quote "Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches." is probably pretty apt. The IRGC also has real support among the Iranian population. Putin clearly has strong support in Russia.
Generally, a lot of people are just not good people.
From the a US perspective, EU hate each other and I see no way any temporary cohesiveness will last. Most EU countries are just as likely to elect a Trump in the next decade
I see how it may look like this from the outside. But I think it would be like saying that siblings hate each other because you witnessed an argument.
Most people in most EU countries consider the other EU countries as allies, even though they don't agree on everything. Now the fact that 27 countries argue means that they talk to each other. I think it's a lot less polarised than in the US. Or course there are extremes too.
The EU needs to be more vigilant than ever, though. Russia has been trying to export their nationalistic totalitarianism to the EU for decades and now the US has openly declared a goal of exporting their brand of blind ignorant nationalism to the EU as well. Both influences will boost alt-right parties if successful. The obvious intended outcome for both powers is a EU that is breaking up from the inside.
On the positive side, this shows that the EU has gained a level of international influence that is taken very seriously by other major powers. It's not 100% certain that it will survive this current wave of assaults, but if it does, it will be even stronger.
I don't think it's new: dividing Europe makes Europe weaker, so if you are not Europe, it is generally in your interest to divide it. Be it Russia, China or the US.
That is also why the nationalists inside of Europe want to be friends with those other players: because if you want to make Europe weaker (because you think you are better off on your own as a European country), then your interests align with those other players.
Do you think that I do? Nationalism existed at the edges of the political spectrum for a long time. I'm saying that outside propaganda tries to actively boost the popularity of those parties.
Well of course there is nationalism in Europe. The thing is, it weakens Europe. And nationalists outside of Europe are very happy to help them. Not only Russia: look at Elon Musk and his nazi salute and publicly endorsing neo-nazis in Germany...
I have no idea how you'd measure it, but I suspect Republican states hate Democrat ones more than most European countries hate each other. Listen to the way they talk about California and New York.
What gave you the impression that EU members hate each other? It'd be a weird union if that was the case. Not saying it's not possible, I just haven't seen it myself, although I am a Swede so clearly I do hate the Danes and the Norrbaggar with passion, but it's love-hate, not hate-hate.
> leaders often favoring national interests to what would be best for the union
If we're talking about leaders for member states, then they're doing their job right :) They're not meant to figure out what's best for the union, we have separate elections for those people who go to EU and represent the country + care about the union. The national "leaders" of the country are quite expected to put national interests above what's best for the union :)
Because of the convoluted way the EU works, those national leaders can have outsized power and even veto some decisions (Hungary, anyone?). The parliament needs to have more power if we want to make the EU more democratic.
As a Brit, I consider it my god given duty to take the piss out of the French; a duty I know is entirely mutual. Please don't however, consider this anything other than a slightly odd friendship.
Ah, as someone who live on the border to France, and every summer experience lost Frenchies asking for directions in French, when we're not in France, I agree :)
Still, love em, let the weirdos eat their snails in peace and may we always be brothers and sisters <3
I don't think it's worse than Midwest vs the coasts or Republican vs Democrat.
In the us these groups have just stopped talking to each other. The only time that happens is over Thanksgiving and that's when it stops for some of those conversations.
At least in Europe the split is usually not within families...
Are you referring to the time when the world Cup is going on? In that case, absolutely. We all turn into monkeys climbing onto our own rock lol
In the same way that the US hates itself, yes. How well do the various US states get along? Surely there is absolutely zero tension between, say, California and Alabama?
I guess they eventually read their own local (US) laws and figured no one cares about that effort since Amazon is still covered by CLOUD Act, regardless of what ccTLD they happen to use for their landing page.
> The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.
Once that was in place, AWS could host their "EU" servers on the moon for all I and others care, still not a solution to avoid the claws of the US.
Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company' so the CLOUD Act doesn't apply. They aren't a local subsidiary, they are an independent company licensing the AWS tech stack to operate fully independently on their own hardware - which just happens to also have a license to the AWS name.
It's a rather clever idea, and it essentially prevents EU government organisations from excluding them from tenders by requiring EU-based ownership. It obviously won't convince anyone with half a brain that they are genuinely independent, but the government lawyers are going to have a really hard time writing tenders in a way which excludes them from participating.
> Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company'
I'm not sure this is actually the idea, it still isn't so in practice for sure, I'm not sure where this misconception comes from.
The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security memo says the Dutch government asked AWS who ultimately owns AWS European Sovereign Cloud GmbH and AWS Luxembourg. According to that memo, AWS stated that both are indirectly owned by Amazon.com, Inc, and this is all public information: https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/36acf7a6-1ea3-401e-86ad-...
Besides, it doesn't really matter who is the parent or where it geographically is located, 18 U.S.C. § 2713 states this:
> [...] regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States.
It'd be a clever idea if it was actually 100% independent, but then it also wouldn't make sense for AWS/Amazon to do, it'd have to be actually independent then, not this weird mix-match of "some stuff in the US and some in EU" which they seem to be aiming for currently.
Thats overly flattering, there have always been good arguments for having your data in the same country (if not the same building) A worse case hypothetical trump is really much worse than the real one.
On the other hand it is also lame to shift the blame on the US. A bit like Jim stole your car after you left the doors open, the key in the ignition and the engine running. Jim is a bad man.
Trump wasn't threatening to invade European countries and supporting Putin's position in an ongoing war in term 1. He has been far more outwardly anti-EU in term 2.
I saw a lot of privacy focused reactions when they cut off Trump from social media before his term ended, while still in office. National sovereignty should always be a consideration, especially when it comes to anything related to essential infrastructure. Not every country is able to insource everything, or even a portion of everything... but every country should make an effort to ensure than there is at least some domestic production for everything that is reasonable related to essential infrastructure.
The US, China, Russia, EU (as a whole) and maybe Brazil are the countries in the best position to be able to do that more than most others just by their size and positions. And even that has limitations.
For example, IMO, the US should be manufacturing at least half of it's prescription medications domestically... it should also be producing a significant portion of it's communications devices domestically as well. We're too dependent on Taiwan and South Korea for technology currently.
I would encourage every nation to consider and take steps towards ensuring their own infrastructure... this does not mean isolation, just security footing.
But yeah, in recent times the sentiment became more urgent. If I were to guess, with zero data in front of me and just judging by what I remember, I think the sentiment really changed first with the ICC blockade that happened last year, then it got really fueled on by the US threats to Greenland's sovereignty, I think that's when organizations and people really got stressed out about moving ASAP.