
Europe’s Top Digital-Privacy Watchdog Zeros in on U.S. Tech Giants - Jerry2
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/technology/europes-top-digital-privacy-watchdog-zeros-in-on-us-tech-giants.html
======
jernfrost
There is a fundamental philosophical difference in European and American
approach to law that makes these problems pop up.

America is common law based which in a way revolves around contracts. Two
people can agree on anything, even giving up rights. That is why contracts in
the US are so long and complicated. If something isn't in the contract it
isn't covered. It also means there is a lot more suing in the US.

In Europe common law dominates which typically gives everybody a minimum set
of rights which can't be given away. They apply regardless of what a contract
says. So a contract in Europe can often be made smaller because what isn't
covered in the contract will often be covered in the law. A lot more is
implicit.

American understanding of society is about removing government hinderances for
your pursuit of happiness. Government is not believe to have a role in giving
you anything.

European understanding of society is that governments are there to ensure your
rights. That means government will be more actively going after people who try
to exploit you, while in America the reaction will be more "well you
voluntarily agreed to this, so nothing we can do".

That means American companies can much more easily impose all sorts of
ludicrous agreements on you, and you have no other choice but to agree to them
or not get the service at all. In Europe you will more often be able to say "I
want this service but your demands on me breaks the law."

~~~
soperj
For anyone outside of the U.S., by American, he means U.S. since the rest of
America(the continent) isn't subject to this.

~~~
sehr
You assume people don't know that while simultaneously assuming they're a
male, quite funny

~~~
soperj
Go on...

------
coldcode
The problem comes down to: how do you follow local or national laws when your
business crosses many (or all) national boundaries? While we all would like
better privacy protection, it's very hard to define exactly what that means
for all types of information especially if it is different in different
countries.

~~~
killerpopiller
Well, you have to obeye local law. Only because the internet makes it easy to
provide services in other countries doesn't put you outside their law - the
territorial principle applies.

Regarding the data protection specifics, well, maybe it makes sense to follow
the standards of the most rigid country globally?

The wild west manner of US-companies and government are really annoying, the
mindset is - if I get my hand on the data it's my property. That is wrong, the
user trusts "you" with it's data and expects it's usage only in the beforehand
given consent for the necessary purposes. It's like copyright, the company has
certain usage rights but does not own it.

The principles are easy: data processing has to be purposeful, lawful, fair
and user rights and will is to be respected.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Regarding the data protection specifics, well, maybe it makes sense to
> follow the standards of the most rigid country globally?

Have you really considered the implications of that precedent? Blasphemy law
in Saudi Arabia. Censorship law in China.

Never mind what happens when the laws in two different countries conflict,
e.g. privacy vs. data retention.

~~~
alistairSH
"Brick and mortar" companies deal with this stuff. Why should the tech
industry be exempt?

If there is profit to be had, the tech giants will figure it out. If there is
no profit, then those countries with laws that are on the fringe will have to
make do without, or change their laws to be more mainstream.

edit - I'm not implying that this is easy. Or, can't be made easier. Only that
laws have varied by country for eons and merchants have always found a way to
deal.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> "Brick and mortar" companies deal with this stuff. Why should the tech
> industry be exempt?

"Brick and mortar" companies decide where to lay their bricks. You put a
website on the internet and it's on _the whole internet_. In practice you
can't even restrict who can access it, as Netflix can attest.

Suppose I don't agree with the laws in X country, or they conflict with the
law in the country I'm physically in. Is it really going to satisfy anybody if
I put "may not access this service from X country" in the terms of service
somewhere, implement some fig leaf of a system to prevent access from there
that everyone and their mother can bypass in five seconds (or the bypass ends
up built into web browsers), and then millions of people from that country
access it anyway?

How does that help anybody vs. just letting the service operate under the laws
of the country where it physically exists and letting the users decide if they
want to patronize a service that operates under that jurisdiction's laws?
(Unless the goal is to increase the adoption of Tor and other anti-censorship
software?)

------
Zikes
Is this the same privacy watchdog that mandated "this site uses cookies"
banners?

~~~
alistairSH
Whoever thought those were a good idea, needs kicked in the head.

I wish there was a global setting to accept all cookies and stop annoying me.

Sigh.

~~~
ju-st
[http://prebake.eu/](http://prebake.eu/)

~~~
tombrossman
There is also [https://github.com/r4vi/block-the-eu-cookie-shit-
list](https://github.com/r4vi/block-the-eu-cookie-shit-list) which blocks far
more, even the unobtrusive ones. Think of it as AdBlock Plus with the
'acceptable ads' feature disabled.

------
ohthehugemanate
There's not much real information here, except for the names of some key
regulators involved. Anyone got a better article?

------
hackuser
One solution would be for the United States, the land of liberty, to give its
citizens privacy protections similar to what Europeans enjoy.

What does a U.S. citizen gain from not having the option for privacy? You
always can forgo it if you like.

~~~
marcoperaza
No one makes you sign up for Google or Facebook. By using those services, you
accept their terms. What the EU is doing is actually taking away your options.

~~~
hackuser
It's not just Google and Facebook (and it may be hard to avoid Facebook in
some situations, such as networking for some jobs); it's ISPs, cellular
providers, cameras in stores, tracking across the Internet - Google tracks me
whether I sign up or not.

Unless I lock myself in my basement, with no communication in or out, I can't
avoid the infringement on my privacy. What are rights or choices if they apply
only in my basement?

> What the EU is doing is actually taking away your options.

People in the EU still can sign up for Facebook or Google and give private
information to them. What options do they lose?

~~~
marcoperaza
> _What options do they lose?_

What will the EU do against companies that have no legal presence in the EU?

The only way for the EU to enforce these kinds of rules is to 1) limit
enforcement to companies with EU offices (which just hurts Europe), 2)
prohibit individuals from using non-complying web services (Great Wall of
Europe? unlikely), or 3) prohibit European businesses from doing business with
non-complying services (i.e. make it illegal for Europeans to buy ads on
Facebook).

Government policy-making isn't making a wishlist. It must be backed by
coercion or it is meaningless.

~~~
hackuser
I don't agree with what you say (Facebook and other large companies operate in
the EU and I haven't heard of one avoiding EU law by hiding in the U.S.), but
even accepting it I don't see what options EU users lose.

~~~
marcoperaza
Unless the EU is willing to resort to options 2 or 3 (which very obviously
_would_ require limiting the options/rights of Europeans), it will have to
accept that is has no control over services with no legal presence in the EU.
In proceeding with option 1, it would be creating a strong incentive for
companies to find a friendlier jurisdiction, further exacerbating Europe's
labor and entrepreneurial malaise. Yes, all of the big tech companies have
European offices today, but 1) they're huge corporations that can afford
regulatory compliance, and 2) they might not have opened those offices in the
current regulatory climate.

Access to the European labor market and datacenters, and the ability to have
salesmen on the ground, might very well outweigh the costs (and foregone
profits) of the EU's proposed data regulations, _for some companies_. But
Europe, already over-burdened with regulations and taxes, as evidenced by
stagnant growth and massive youth unemployment, is just digging itself into an
ever-deeper hole. There is such thing as death by a thousand cuts.

------
ithkuil
as a non-native speaker I wonder whether it should rather be "zeroes in". Or
is it equivalent ?

EDIT: "to zero in" being a verb. For the noun, I know there are two
alternative spelling for the plural.

~~~
Phemist
As another non-native speaker, I think both are correct. It's the different
between "American" english and "British" english. The title being american
(NYTimes), and "zeroes in" being British.

