In Light of American Surveillance, European Union Legal Decision to Protect Europeans' Internet Priv

[JDPriestly]

In Light of American Surveillance, European Union Legal Decision to Protect Europeans' Internet Privacy.

Cross-posted from GD.

Google and Facebook, Microsoft, et al. will have to cope . . . . somehow.

In the end, the NSA snooping, most of which can only be utterly useless and merely invasive, is to blame for the damage this reaction to its unwarranted nosiness will do to the internet and to American companies that have lead the internet revolution.

Just how uninformed about the values of people in other countries can an agency that is so important to our security and aspects of our foreign policy be? This is a total misreading and misunderstanding of the history and principles of Europeans.

What a big mistake. One big goof. The epitome of cultural insensitivity. Less than thirty years from the dictatorship of the STASI in Eastern Germany and our government takes up where the STASI stopped.

What a brazen insult to the many people who sacrificed their lives to avoid their corrupt government's intrusion via surveillance of their lives.

The personal data of Europeans held in America by online tech corporations is not safe from US government snooping, the European court of justice has ruled, in a landmark verdict that hits Facebook, Google, Amazon and many others.

The Luxembourg-based court declared the EU-US “safe harbour” rules regulating firms’ retention of Europeans’ data in the US to be invalid, throwing a spoke into trade relations that will also impact on current negotiations on a far-reaching transatlantic trade pact between Washington and Brussels.

The ECJ, whose findings are binding on all EU member states, ruled on Tuesday that: “The United States … scheme enables interference, by United States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons…”

The verdict came as a direct result of Edward Snowden’s revelations, published in the Guardian, of how the US National Security Agency was obtaining mass access to data held by the big internet servers and telecoms companies in the US. As a result, an Austrian lawyer, Maximilian Schrems, took Facebook to court in Ireland, arguing the social media site was violating his privacy by retaining his data in the US, including material he had himself deleted.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/06/us-digital-data-storage-systems-enable-state-interference-eu-court-rules

Europe’s highest court on Tuesday struck down an international agreement that allowed companies to move digital information like people’s web search histories and social media updates between the European Union and the United States. The decision left the international operations of companies like Google and Facebook in a sort of legal limbo even as their services continued working as usual.

The ruling, by the European Court of Justice, said the so-called safe harbor agreement was flawed because it allowed American government authorities to gain routine access to Europeans’ online information. The court said leaks from Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency, made it clear that American intelligence agencies had almost unfettered access to the data, infringing on Europeans’ rights to privacy.

. . . .

At issue is the sort of personal data that people create when they post something on Facebook or other social media; when they do web searches on Google; or when they order products or buy movies from Amazon or Apple. Such data is hugely valuable to companies, which use it in a broad range of ways, including tailoring advertisements to individuals and promoting products or services based on users’ online activities.

. . . .

The lengthy negotiations have highlighted the different approaches to online data protection. In the United States, privacy is viewed as a consumer protection issue; in Europe, privacy is almost on a par with such fundamental rights as freedom of expression. Last year, Europe’s top court ruled that anyone with connections to the region could ask search engines like Google to remove links about themselves from online results. European campaigners said this so-called right to be forgotten ruling would help protect people’s online privacy, while many in the United States said the decision would curtail online freedom of speech.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html?_r=0

The ECJ ruled Thursday that if a company operates a service in the native language of a country, and has representatives in that country, then it can be held accountable by the country’s national data protection agency despite not being headquartered in the country.

. . . .

The case was brought by the Hungarian data protection authority against property website Weltimmo, which operates a property advertising service in Hungary but is based in Slovakia. The ECJ decided that Weltimmo could be liable for fines imposed by the Hungarian authority for breach of national data protection law.

Before the judgment, companies such as Facebook which choose to headquarter their European operations in one country, such as Ireland, were thought to be subject to regulation only within that country. The companies could then operate in any EU member state without having to gain regulatory approval in each country.

“This was to the benefit of many companies, some of whom elected to create an establishment in the UK or Ireland, where data protection laws and practices are more liberal and arguably more business friendly,” said Winton.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo

What does this decision suggest about the hubris and incompetence in our security and foreign policy leadership?

It's kind of understandable if our diplomatic corps and top lawyers don't understand the values of people in countries that are very different from our own, but really, it isn't that hard to respect those of Europeans.

I am embarrassed for my country and my government. This situation should never have arisen. We should demand more sophistication and cultural understanding about other countries from our government.
Internet Privacy.

Google and Facebook, Microsoft, et al. will have to cope . . . . somehow.

In the end, the NSA snooping, most of which can only be utterly useless and merely invasive, is to blame for the damage this reaction to its unwarranted nosiness will do to the internet and to American companies that have lead the internet revolution.

Just how uninformed about the values of people in other countries can an agency that is so important to our security and aspects of our foreign policy be? This is a total misreading and misunderstanding of the history and principles of Europeans.

What a big mistake. One big goof. The epitome of cultural insensitivity. Less than thirty years from the dictatorship of the STASI in Eastern Germany and our government takes up where the STASI stopped.

What a brazen insult to the many people who sacrificed their lives to avoid their corrupt government's intrusion via surveillance of their lives.

The personal data of Europeans held in America by online tech corporations is not safe from US government snooping, the European court of justice has ruled, in a landmark verdict that hits Facebook, Google, Amazon and many others.

The Luxembourg-based court declared the EU-US “safe harbour” rules regulating firms’ retention of Europeans’ data in the US to be invalid, throwing a spoke into trade relations that will also impact on current negotiations on a far-reaching transatlantic trade pact between Washington and Brussels.

The ECJ, whose findings are binding on all EU member states, ruled on Tuesday that: “The United States … scheme enables interference, by United States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons…”

The verdict came as a direct result of Edward Snowden’s revelations, published in the Guardian, of how the US National Security Agency was obtaining mass access to data held by the big internet servers and telecoms companies in the US. As a result, an Austrian lawyer, Maximilian Schrems, took Facebook to court in Ireland, arguing the social media site was violating his privacy by retaining his data in the US, including material he had himself deleted.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/06/us-digital-data-storage-systems-enable-state-interference-eu-court-rules

Europe’s highest court on Tuesday struck down an international agreement that allowed companies to move digital information like people’s web search histories and social media updates between the European Union and the United States. The decision left the international operations of companies like Google and Facebook in a sort of legal limbo even as their services continued working as usual.

The ruling, by the European Court of Justice, said the so-called safe harbor agreement was flawed because it allowed American government authorities to gain routine access to Europeans’ online information. The court said leaks from Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency, made it clear that American intelligence agencies had almost unfettered access to the data, infringing on Europeans’ rights to privacy.

. . . .

At issue is the sort of personal data that people create when they post something on Facebook or other social media; when they do web searches on Google; or when they order products or buy movies from Amazon or Apple. Such data is hugely valuable to companies, which use it in a broad range of ways, including tailoring advertisements to individuals and promoting products or services based on users’ online activities.

. . . .

The lengthy negotiations have highlighted the different approaches to online data protection. In the United States, privacy is viewed as a consumer protection issue; in Europe, privacy is almost on a par with such fundamental rights as freedom of expression. Last year, Europe’s top court ruled that anyone with connections to the region could ask search engines like Google to remove links about themselves from online results. European campaigners said this so-called right to be forgotten ruling would help protect people’s online privacy, while many in the United States said the decision would curtail online freedom of speech.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html?_r=0

The ECJ ruled Thursday that if a company operates a service in the native language of a country, and has representatives in that country, then it can be held accountable by the country’s national data protection agency despite not being headquartered in the country.

. . . .

The case was brought by the Hungarian data protection authority against property website Weltimmo, which operates a property advertising service in Hungary but is based in Slovakia. The ECJ decided that Weltimmo could be liable for fines imposed by the Hungarian authority for breach of national data protection law.

Before the judgment, companies such as Facebook which choose to headquarter their European operations in one country, such as Ireland, were thought to be subject to regulation only within that country. The companies could then operate in any EU member state without having to gain regulatory approval in each country.

“This was to the benefit of many companies, some of whom elected to create an establishment in the UK or Ireland, where data protection laws and practices are more liberal and arguably more business friendly,” said Winton.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo

What does this decision suggest about the hubris and incompetence in our security and foreign policy leadership?

It's kind of understandable if our diplomatic corps and top lawyers don't understand the values of people in countries that are very different from our own, but really, it isn't that hard to respect those of Europeans.

I am embarrassed for my country and my government. This situation should never have arisen. We should demand more sophistication and cultural understanding about other countries from our government.