
“Privacy Shield” proposed to replace US-EU Safe Harbor, faces skepticism - pavornyoh
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/privacy-shield-doomed-from-get-go-nsa-bulk-surveillance-waved-through/
======
mercurial
It's really farcical. Nobody with the tiniest bit of common sense would take
seriously any promise of privacy from a foreign government, especially the one
which established the most far-ranging data collection ever. Not that you
should be naive enough to think that the various EU intelligence apparatuses
don't do exactly the same thing but with less money.

------
mark_l_watson
Does anyone know how EU privacy laws will play out against TPIP? My
understanding is that TPIP (and TPP for the pacific area) allow corporations
to sue governments in tribunal courts that pass laws that negatively impact
corporations' profits.

~~~
matt4077
That's obviously a grotesque simplification. The investor-state dispute
resolution mechanisms are supposed to protect against legislation that amounts
to expropriation, or that unfairly targets only foreign companies. It
specifically names environmental protection, consumer welfare and other
legitimate aims of new legislation.

There's a lot to criticise with these mechanisms without resorting to
misrepresentation.

~~~
wfo
The funny thing about law is it doesn't matter how it's meant to be used once
it becomes law; power is power.

I'm sure when the trade agreements that allow tobacco companies to determine
Australia's cigarette laws were signed there were plenty of people saying "oh,
no, these laws are only meant for good things. We'll only use them when a
country specifically targets a specific foreign company. They are for consumer
welfare. We promise."

And then this happens: [https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-
giant-s...](https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-
australia/)

Just like when the PATRIOT ACT in the US was passed it was only going to be
used for terrorism (Promise! There are legitimate aims!), not for drugs like
it is the vast majority of the time today.

I think in this case it's not a "grotesque simplification" it's just stating
the facts without running a free PR campaign on behalf of large
multinationals.

~~~
matt4077
Yes, big Tobacco is suing Australia. And I'll be first on the barricades if
they win. Until then, it's just a lawsuit with dubious prospects.

In fact, that's the main problem I have with the ISDS doomsday scenario: these
mechanisms have been part of trade agreements for what, the last 40 years? Yet
there isn't a single example for any of these outrageous results people are
predicting.

I've honestly looked into it with what I believe is an open mind and I
couldn't find any.

(Nonetheless, I welcome the changes to CETA just announced today:
[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-399_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-399_en.htm))

