5 ms·
The last two data exchange agreements between US/EU were overturned. I think it's unlikely at this point unless the USA adjusts some of its surveillance laws.
by fenier 5y ago
The last two data exchange agreements between US/EU were overturned. I think it's unlikely at this point unless the USA adjusts some of its surveillance laws.
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoYup, Section 702 of the FISA act needs to be repealed in order for these judgements to not be relevant. That's not to mention all of the other, non-legally justified analytics performed by the NSA/CIA etc.
- lumost 5y agoThat gets to the heart of it. Europeans are increasingly uncomfortable using US based services due to how the data is used. It is not inconceivable that there will be multiple Internets based on legal jurisdiction, we already see this with China.
- shadowgovt 5y agoI remember when the Great Firewall was considered the manifestation of evil by old-time internet users. It'll be hilarious if European nations decide pursuing GDPR cases is intractable when so many services Europeans use are fully outside the country (and beyond EU enforcement of jurisdiction) and they decide a firewall is necessary to protect their citizens from American surveillance. It would prove China was just ahead of the curve.
- modo_mario 5y agoDo we then also finally get some of our own internet giants that won't get bought out immediately?
- stickfigure 5y agoDo you imagine the EU blocking EU citizens from accessing US services? I find that hard to believe. "We're blocking your access to the outside world for your protection" must ring pretty hollow to the people who vote. It works in China because nobody gets a vote.
- lumost 5y agoExtra-territorial laws are one way of achieving the same effect. A logical next-step would be blocking websites from jurisdictions where such extra-territorial laws are unenforceable. "This website is in a territory not subject to EU regulations governing privacy, security, and content. Do you wish to proceed?"
- _Algernon_ 5y agoThis would amount to a even worse cookie banner. I hope the EU has learned something from the embarrassment that is cookie banners.
- nickpp 5y agoNope. They are blaming the banners on the "greedy" websites. Not on the broken law. Kind of like the current US government blaming inflation on... also the companies. Not the money printing.
- kuschku 5y agoMy website has no banner, and is completely legal. I just use cookies for what they were meant for: As login cookie and to store preferences such as dark mode. It’s not the EU law that’s broken. It’s intentional that if you want to sell someone’s firstborn you need actual approval and not a clause hidden in the ToS
- zeepzeep 5y ago> the embarrassment that is cookie banners The idea is great, but shady websites make it so you hate it, so that you hate privacy laws instead of the shady companies tracking your children.
- _Algernon_ 5y agoIts a responsibility that should never have been put on websites in the first place. The browser should handle it. Cookie banners is akin to letting browser extensions create their own permission requests.