Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday July 20 2020, @07:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the one-small-step-at-a-time dept.

The CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) issued its judgment on the Schrems II case, formally called Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (Case C-311/1). The gist is that US companies are now put back to an average status, same as most others, with no special access to EU data due to operating in the US. It will take a while before the decision is published at the government site. Max himself has also issued his first statement on the CJEU judgment, notably that the European Commission bowed to US pressure and that now reform of US surveillance is unavoidable:

US Surveillance reform is unavoidable - CJEU just says it out loud

The Court was clear that the far-reaching US surveillance laws are in conflict with EU fundamental rights. The US limits most protections to "US persons", but does not protect the data of foreign customers of US companies from the NSA. As there is no way of finding out if you or your business are under surveillance, people also have no option to go to the courts. The CJEU found that this violates the 'essence' of certain EU fundamental rights.

Schrems: "The Court clarified for a second time now that there is a clash between EU privacy law and US surveillance law. As the EU will not change its fundamental rights to please the NSA, the only way to overcome this clash is for the US to introduce solid privacy rights for all people – including foreigners. Surveillance reform thereby becomes crucial for the business interests of Silicon Valley."

He covers several other points in his statement, including that the European Commission clearly bowed to US pressure in its violation, that EU Data Protection Agencies are obligated to act and now have no excuses, the loopholes currently used by surveillance engines like Facebook have been closed, and that these cases are expensive and can only be won through concerted effort and investment.

The roots of the case go back to the Snowden revelations in 2013 after which Max Schrems filed a complaint with Ireland's DPC (Data Protection Commission) regarding the so-called Safe Harbor agreements, leading to their invalidation in 2015 and subsequent replacement by the EU-US Privacy Shield in 2016. It was back in 2017 that the Irish High Court kicked the case up to the CJEU.

Previously:
(2020) Top Euro Court Advised: Citing 'National Security' Doesn't Justify Widespread Surveillance
(2019) EU's Top Court Says Tracking Cookies Require Actual Consent Before Scarfing Down User Data
(2018) Privacy Expert Schrems Files GDPR Complaints Against Google, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp
(2018) Facebook is Trying to Block Schrems II Privacy Referral to EU Top Court
(2018) High Court Sets Out 11 Questions for ECJ on EU-US Data Transfers
(2015) EU Top Court Rules Safe Harbour Treaty Invalid


Original Submission

Related Stories

EU Top Court Rules Safe Harbour Treaty Invalid 33 comments

The European Court of Justice has just ruled that the Safe Harbour agreement, which is used by American startups to transfer data between the US and Europe, is invalid. As a result, companies such as Facebook and Twitter may now need to host European user data in Europe, rather than hosting it in the US and transferring it over.

This is a brushed up Google translation of nu.nl (http://www.nu.nl/internet/4139196/europees-hof-zet-streep-privacyverdrag-met-vs.html).

In the meantime this news is also coming through in English: http://www.ft.com/fastft/402791/eu-court-deals-blow-amazon-facebook-with-safe-harbour-ruling and http://uk.businessinsider.com/european-court-of-justice-safe-harbor-ruling-2015-10.

The European Court on Tuesday scrapped the so-called Safe Harbour treaty, which regulated the storage of European personal data in the United States.

Under the treaty enabled Internet companies like Facebook are allowed to store the data of Europeans in the US. However, the Court finds that the data in that country are inadequately protected and that therefore the treaty is invalid.

The ruling also made clear that, regardless of the European convention, it should have been possible for national regulators like the Dutch Data Protection Authority to prevent data from being sent to servers in the US. The Court follows with its judgment the recently expressed opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot.

The judgment has been done in a case between the Austrian student Max Schrems and Facebook. Schrems wanted the Irish privacy watchdog to investigate data protection in the United States, but because of the Safe Harbor treaty, the Irish watchdog refused to launch an investigation. Schrems also noted disclosures of whistleblower Edward Snowden in this case. NSA documents from Snowden showed that the intelligence agencies harvest private data from internet users on a large scale. According to Schrems this was a reason to keep European data from being processed in the US.

In the ruling, the Court points to a message from the European Commission to the European Parliament, in which the large-scale collection of private data by the US is named "unacceptable". In view of this communication, the Commission should immediately suspend the treaty.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

High Court Sets Out 11 Questions for ECJ on EU-US Data Transfers 9 comments

While most of the newspapers were distracting the public with the antics of Mark Zuckerberg, a European Union High Court raised 11 important questions regarding privacy (warning for PDF) that will affect large data-gathering operations like Facebook. The 11 questions have been passed upwards to the most senior EU court and are based on a current case started by Max Schrems.

The Irish High Court referral, published on Thursday and due to be submitted to the ECJ by the end of April, stems from a case brought by an Austrian privacy activist against the methods used by Facebook to store user data on U.S. servers following revelations in 2013 of mass U.S. surveillance practices.

[...] The High Court's five-page referral asks the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) if the Privacy Shield - under which companies certify they comply with EU privacy law when transferring data to the United States - does in fact mean that the United States "ensures an adequate level of protection".

Opponents can still appeal the court's referral any time until the end of the month. The proposed Privacy Shield legislation is the EU's follow up framework to cover transfers of personal data to outside the EU. It is being written as a replacement for the now invalidated International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles. The Safe Harbour agreement was brought down, after an earlier two-year lawsuit (Case C-362/14) by Max Schrems, because of its inadequate protections in light of the Snowden revelations.

From Reuters : EU's top court asked to probe Facebook U.S. data transfers
The Irish Times : High Court sets out 11 questions for ECJ on EU-US data transfers
Ars Technica : Facebook data transfers to be examined by EU court, Irish judge rules

See also an intial analysis, http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sh2/PA-ref.pdf

Earlier on SN:
Austria Resident Max Schrems is Organizing a Privacy-Oriented Class-Action Suit Against Facebook
On its Way: A Google-Free, NSA-Free IT Infrastructure for Europe


Original Submission

Facebook is Trying to Block Schrems II Privacy Referral to EU Top Court 3 comments

Facebook is trying to block Schrems II privacy referral to EU top court. In an attempt to get Ireland's Supreme Court to decide about accepting their appeal, their lawyer has asked for the referral to the EU court to be delayed while at the same time asking for an unusal accelerated referral to Ireland's Supreme Court.

Facebook’s lawyers are attempting to block a High Court decision in Ireland, where its international business is headquartered, to refer a long-running legal challenge to the bloc’s top court.

[...] The case relates to a complaint filed by privacy campaigner and lawyer Max Schrems regarding a transfer mechanism that’s currently used by thousands of companies to authorize flows of personal data on EU citizens to the US for processing. Though Schrems was actually challenging the use of so-called Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) by Facebook, specifically, when he updated an earlier complaint on the same core data transfer issue — which relates to US government mass surveillance practices, as revealed by the 2013 Snowden disclosures — with Ireland’s data watchdog.

Also at Reuters : Facebook bids to keep data privacy case from EU's top court.

Earlier on SN:
High Court Sets Out 11 Questions for ECJ on EU-US Data Transfers
Austria Resident Max Schrems is Organizing a Privacy-Oriented Class-Action Suit Against Facebook
EU Top Court Rules Safe Harbour Treaty Invalid


Original Submission

Privacy Expert Schrems Files GDPR Complaints Against Google, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp 31 comments

The GDPR is now in effect. This is an attempt (mostly good) to give people control over their personal data. Specifically, companies must ask you to opt-in to data collection, and you have the right to opt-out at any time.

Of course, too many companies are trying to abuse the situation. For example, I received several notices with an "accept" option that would opt-in to more ads, newsletters or data collection than I had before. I was particularly annoyed by the new Sonos privacy policy. It states that not opting-in to their full data collection means that your Sonos products will no longer work. Which, of course, makes no sense at all - there's no reason why a loudspeaker needs to send my music listening habits to the mothership.

This is an example of a practice called "forced consent", and is explicitly forbidden by the GDPR. Max Schrems, an Austrian attorney and privacy expert, has gone to war on exactly this kind of abuse. Just minutes after the GDPR came into effect, he filed separate complaints against Google, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp - all of which have similar forced-consent policies: opt-in or you cannot use their products.

Schrem's efforts are funded through noyb.eu (none of your business), which is a crowdfunded platform and organization that works for privacy rights online.


Original Submission

EU's Top Court Says Tracking Cookies Require Actual Consent Before Scarfing Down User Data 29 comments

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Websites may not present visitors with a pre-checked box that signals consent to the storage of HTTP cookies on their devices, according to a ruling [PDF] handed down on Tuesday by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The decision follows from the German Federation of Consumer Organizations' challenge of German company Planet49's use of a pre-ticked checkbox to obtain permission to place cookies on the devices of players of its online lottery game.

[...]In March, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, who advises the court, said Planet49 failed to obtain valid consent when it presented online lottery players with a pre-selected checkbox.

"[R]equiring a user to positively untick a box and therefore become active if he does not consent to the installation of cookies does not satisfy the criterion of active consent," Szpunar said in his opinion.

"In such a situation, it is virtually impossible to determine objectively whether or not a user has given his consent on the basis of a freely given and informed decision. By contrast, requiring a user to tick a box makes such an assertion far more probable."

[...]The court also makes clear that websites must disclose how long cookies will persist and whether or not third parties will be able [to access] those cookies. This will require existing websites serving European visitors to make code changes to display those cookie parameters.

The cookie consent crackdown comes as third-party cookies are increasingly being blocked by default. Between Apple's Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari's WebKit engine and Mozilla's Enhanced Tracking Protection in Firefox, regulations like GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act, and ad blockers, internet users may actually secure a bit of privacy amid the global surveillance panopticon – unless Google manages to undermine hard-won protections through its suite of Privacy Sandbox proposals.


Original Submission

Top Euro Court Advised: Citing 'National Security' Doesn't Justify Widespread Surveillance 12 comments

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Analysis: In a massive win for privacy rights, the advocate general advising the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that national security concerns should not override citizens' data privacy.

That doesn't mean that the intelligence and security services should oblige communications companies to hand over information, especially when it comes to terrorism suspects, the opinion, handed down yesterday, proposes. But it would mean that those requests will need to be done "on an exceptional and temporary basis," as opposed to sustained blanket harvesting of information – and only when justified by "overriding considerations relating to threats to public security or national security."

In other words, a US-style hovering [sic] up of personal data is not legal under European law.

The legal argument being made by the AG is technically advisory - the ECJ has yet to decide - though in roughly 80 per cent of cases it does side with the preliminary opinion put forward by its Advocate General, in this case Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona.

If the ECJ agrees, it could also have significant implications for the UK which has passed a law that gives the security services extraordinary reach and powers – which is in a legal limbo due to the ongoing Brexit plans to leave the European Union.

Irish Data Regulator Orders Facebook to Stop Sending Personal Data to the US 4 comments

Ireland's Data Protection commissioner has ordered Facebook not to send any more personal data from Europe to the US. The regulator has the authority to fine Facebook up to 4% of its global turnover, should non-compliance be an issue.

The order, described to Independent.ie by people close to the situation as "well progressed", is the result of a European Court decision in July, which struck down the transatlantic 'Privacy Shield' treaty.

It means that the validity of 'standard contractual clauses' (SCCs) used by thousands of Irish and European companies to transfer data, is now closer to being cancelled.

However, the process is only about half over. The order is only preliminary, so far, and Facebook is doing what it can to appeal or subvert the ruling. The NYOB post links to three letters which provide background on the matter between Data Protection Commission and Facebook.

Previously:
(2020) CJEU Issues Judgment on Schrems II Case
(2018) Privacy Expert Schrems Files GDPR Complaints Against Google, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp
(2018) ICANN's Pre-Emptive Attack on the GDPR Thrown out by German Court
(2018) Facebook is Trying to Block Schrems II Privacy Referral to EU Top Court
(2015) EU Top Court Rules Safe Harbour Treaty Invalid


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @09:09AM (7 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @09:09AM (#1024014) Journal

    US Surveillance reform is unavoidable

    Which laws are those Internet corporations gonna give priority?
    - If the EU ones, then intense lobby on privacy laws are gonna happen in Washington - fuck the 5 eyes, none of them is european
    - If US - lawyers rejoice, but anyway have a contingency account for paying fines when operating in EU space

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @10:11AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @10:11AM (#1024021)

      "fuck the 5 eyes, none of them is european"
      Well except UK, unless you are not counting it because of brexit.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @10:56AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @10:56AM (#1024030) Journal

        unless you are not counting it because of brexit.

        ...as such, they don't have to follow the EU legislation.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @06:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @06:02PM (#1024181)

          Don't be so sure. This kind of stuff could be included in future deals with EU.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @04:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @04:45PM (#1024159)

      Oh, woe is me, unable to be an intercontinental, multi-billion dollar corporation, I have to obide by conflicting legal requirements.

      What am I to do? How will I maintain my income, the most important thing of all?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @06:03PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @06:03PM (#1024182)

      Which laws are those Internet corporations gonna give priority?

      EU surveillance laws, of course.
      https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/digitaliberties/why-you-should-know-about-germanys-new-surveillance-law/ [opendemocracy.net]
      Natürlich, "EU fundamental rights".

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @06:11PM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @06:11PM (#1024185) Journal

        "During a criminal investigation" - a bit far from mass surveillance.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 20 2020, @10:21PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @10:21PM (#1024294) Journal

          THAT depends on which set of lawyers you're talking to. If I suspect you of being a criminal, I may put you, your family, all of your friends and acquaintances, all of your business associates, and everyone you've ever sent an email to - all the way out to the "third degree". Which would encompass about half the world's population.

  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @11:07AM (19 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @11:07AM (#1024034) Journal

    The Court was clear that the far-reaching US surveillance laws are in conflict with EU fundamental rights. The US limits most protections to "US persons", but does not protect the data of foreign customers of US companies from the NSA. As there is no way of finding out if you or your business are under surveillance, people also have no option to go to the courts. The CJEU found that this violates the 'essence' of certain EU fundamental rights.

    This really is stating that the sovereignty of other parts of the world is in conflict with the "essence" of certain EU fundamental rights. The US might be relatively special in its covert surveillance capabilities, but it's not special in its legal protections for such surveillance. This is not something that a court can fix.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @11:16AM (18 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @11:16AM (#1024039) Journal

      This is not something that a court can fix.

      An European court can impose fines based on the laws for any legal entity operating in Europe.
      Don't like it? Don't do business there or pay fines.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @11:37AM (17 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @11:37AM (#1024049) Journal

        operating in Europe.

        Scope error detected in statement.

        Don't do business there or pay fines.

        One can still collect massive data on EU citizens without doing business in Europe or paying fines to a EU court. Or one can seize corresponding property from European entities operating in the adversarial region.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @12:11PM (10 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @12:11PM (#1024055) Journal

          One can still collect massive data on EU citizens without doing business in Europe or paying fines to a EU court.

          No income from Europe, though. Twice the market size of US by the population number.

          Or one can seize corresponding property from European entities operating in the adversarial region.

          One? Or US?
          I see you aren't tired of winning yet.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @12:25PM (9 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @12:25PM (#1024059) Journal

            No income from Europe, though.

            No direct income from Europe.

            Twice the market size of US by the population number.

            Nope. The US population is roughly 330 million. EU is roughly 450 million. That's only a third greater. And the EU is maintaining that lead via a rather unsustainable immigration rate.

            One? Or US?

            Or China? Or Russia? Or India? Or Africa? Or South America? Etc. That's not counting organized crime which has its own ability to tit for tat.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @12:34PM (8 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @12:34PM (#1024063) Journal

              Nope. The US population is roughly 330 million. EU is roughly 450 million.

              Refresh your browser cache, it likely about 30 years old [worldometers.info]

              One? Or US?

              Or China? Or Russia? Or India? Or Africa? Or South America? Etc. That's not counting organized crime which has its own ability to tit for tat.

              Context [xkcd.com]
              TFS "US Surveillance reform is unavoidable - CJEU just says it out loud"

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @01:27PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @01:27PM (#1024083)

                You might want to refresh your brain cache.

                "The EU covers over 4 million km² and has 446 million inhabitants - the world's third largest population after China and India."
                - https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/figures/living_en [europa.eu]

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @01:34PM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:34PM (#1024091) Journal

                  Bad Google-fu [soylentnews.org]

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @01:28PM (5 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:28PM (#1024085) Journal
                I thought you had slipped when you had earlier posted "fuck the 5 eyes, none of them is european". The EU is not Europe. It doesn't include Russia, UK, Ukraine, Switzerland, Turkey (Istanbul), Norway, or Albania and most of former Yugoslavia. The first three countries alone are over 200 million people that are part of Europe, but not part of the EU.

                As to this "context", let us recall I already widened it a bit in my original posting by the phrase "other parts of the world". You can thank me later.
                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @01:33PM (4 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:33PM (#1024089) Journal

                  The EU is not Europe.

                  I stand corrected on this one.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @01:39PM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:39PM (#1024095) Journal
                    I guess you're sitting on the other correction.
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @01:41PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:41PM (#1024097) Journal
                      Well, I did say you could thank me later. Rain check then.
                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @01:42PM (1 child)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:42PM (#1024098) Journal

                      Not accepting your widening of context.

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @12:27PM (5 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @12:27PM (#1024060) Journal

          operating in Europe.

          Scope error detected in statement.

          Error detection module defective

          Facebook [wikipedia.org]

          Users outside of the US and Canada contract with Facebook's Irish subsidiary "Facebook Ireland Limited". In return, This allows Facebook to avoid US taxes for all users in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and South America.

          Google offices in Europe [about.google]

          Amazon offices in Europe [aboutamazon.eu]

          Ebay has 11 offices across the Europe.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @12:36PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @12:36PM (#1024064) Journal
            How about the NSA? They apparently have offices [nsa.gov] in the EU too, but you're not going to stop their surveillance operations by seizing those offices.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @12:37PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @12:37PM (#1024066) Journal
              Hmm, maybe I'm wrong [theintercept.com] about that.
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @12:54PM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @12:54PM (#1024069) Journal

                6 years so long ago, especially after pissing off Merkel [theguardian.com].
                If you take 2 minutes of your time to RTFA, you'll get the present legislation was actually triggered by NSA being naughty.

                How about the NSA? They apparently have offices [nsa.gov] in the EU too

                Illegal is illegal.

                but you're not going to stop their surveillance operations by seizing those offices.

                Maybe not. One doesn't need to reach Nirvana to do better than yesterday and who knows what tomorrow will bring on? Maybe NSA will realize their mistakes, maybe the US govt will get it and stop mass surveillance on EU subjects, maybe even mass surveillance on Americans. One can hope.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @01:37PM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:37PM (#1024093) Journal

                  Illegal is illegal.

                  Except, of course, when it's not illegal. I hope I'm not going too fast here? I was hoping my earlier phrase "legal protections for such surveillance" would inform you that real world scenarios exist where these things are not illegal in the regions where they are being performed and hence, can be done in such a way that the EU can't punish anyone for it. No punishment == not illegal in my book.

                  This reminds me of the Mueller indictments of Russian parties that will never see the light of day simply because the indicted parties aren't dumb enough to visit the US.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 20 2020, @01:43PM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2020, @01:43PM (#1024100) Journal

                    Fast? No.
                    Irrelevant? Yes

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @12:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2020, @12:22PM (#1024058)

    burning down bodegas, smashing cars, and assaulting people we don't like.

    We'll get back to the civil rights debate when we stop breaking shit.

    Have a nice day.

    --BLM

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2020, @10:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2020, @10:20PM (#1025165)

    However, it is not possible to directly share data of other people (e.g. friends, colleagues) with a US provider unless you have obtained their freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous consent to do so.

    Laws won't change. Facebook, Amazon, etc. will simply add a checkbox at account creation, "I understand that {company} may either store my data on servers located anywhere within the world including the United States, and that {company} to enhance its services may engage third party providers who may store personal data on those servers. I freely give specific consent and state I have been informed of this usage. Failure to consent will result in being unable to use the site or services." Done, as most people will still want either the pricing or the convenience. If they can get away with it, it will just be a line in their privacy agreement or terms of service that nobody but lawyers and public policy advocates will read and nobody who uses the services will care about.

    More properly, the majority of companies will do that which will maximize their profit. This is a lot cheaper than buying legislation.

(1)