The Safe Harbor ruling stems from an earlier decision by an Irish court

45 pointsby ghoshover 9 years ago

7 comments

mtgxover 9 years ago

> Commission negotiators are going to find that their hands are tied by the court ruling. They will be simply unable to make concessions that they might otherwise be prepared to make, because they cannot ignore a constitutional ruling from the European Court of Justice without breaking the law. Any further negotiations will take place in the shadow of a potential veto from a European court which has staked out a very strong position on the fundamental privacy rights of E.U. citizens.This is what I love most about this. Now the EU Commission needs to start from a strict standard of privacy imposed by the highest EU Court. The US government or companies can't lobby their way out of this one anymore. The EC, at least the previous one, was rather notorious for being easily manipulated by the US influences (remember ACTA?)Whether the new EC likes it or not, it will have to start the negotiations for the new Safe Harbor and Data Protection Directive from the baseline imposed by the Court. Or risk having the new agreements invalidated as well a year or two later. I bet they had already made huge concessions on the new Safe Harbor and Data Protection Directive to the US, but now all of those will have to be canceled.Also, the US Congress will now be forced to take action against the FISA Amendments Act and the Executive Order 12333, as well. That's another way in which this Safe Harbor "problem" could be fixed from the US side.

评论 #10344922 未加载

gasullover 9 years ago

Bad for startups and the interconnected Internet, but still damage minimization compared to allowing the NSA dragnet.The bad consequences are explained very well here:<a href="http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2015/10/6/end-of-safe-harbor/" rel="nofollow">http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2015/10/6/end-of-safe-harbor/</a>

评论 #10344926 未加载

评论 #10344810 未加载

评论 #10344617 未加载

Intermernetover 9 years ago

Something that's confusing me: How will companies like Facebook store inter-country friendship / chat data? If I'm in the EU and I'm friends with someone in the US, and we communicate using FB, where does that data live under this ruling? Do my transmissions to them get stored in an EU data center and their transmissions to me get stored in a US data center? Or will it be decided on something else (Who started the conversation, who initiated the friend request etc.)?Apart from the political implications of this decision, technically, how will global "social" companies decide where each piece of data is stored?Email providers like Gmail will probably just store a copy in each location (and they can claim fairly accurately that that's a side effect of the protocols being used) but real-time, centralized communications (FB chat , Google Hangouts etc.) seem to already break the logical definitions of a geographic boundary so I have no idea how the data would be logically segregated across these boundaries.Has this been discussed elsewhere? I couldn't find anything with a quick search, but I'm not sure what terms I should be searching for.

DanielBMarkhamover 9 years ago

I am missing the part where this is a victory against U.S. surveillance. Why would U.S. surveillance care where the data sits? In fact it'd be much easier to have the allies pick up the data in their home country -- plus there are less complications. Hell, I'd call it a win.Yep, it's a hit on operations for large companies. But it's not the end of the world. Lots of cash and severe growth mode means they'll just use lawyers to stall while they do some major re-architecture work over the next few years. Not a disaster.The loss is for small/medium U.S. companies -- the kind of companies that go on to be Facebooks. The kind we need to make the economy grow. They're in a hell of a mess. They don't have the cash or momentum to weather the storm, and competitors overseas are now sitting pretty on a more locked-up local market.As far as I can tell, this article has exactly nothing to do with U.S. surveillance. In fact, the results of the ruling, if anything, could be said to have exactly opposite effects of those promised in the headline. (Geesh, WP)

评论 #10344799 未加载

评论 #10344735 未加载

评论 #10344649 未加载

LoSboccaccover 9 years ago

tu quoque washington post?"Smart judge put Safe Harbor under the right light to be axed by the European Court"but then if the whole title contains most the content, what's left on page views, mright?And interestingly what that right light was is in another page altogether, here <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/20/the-case-that-might-cripple-facebook/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/2...</a>

cromwellianover 9 years ago

I'm preparing for a big vote down on this one.I don't understand why this is a blow against U.S. surveillance, isn't it in fact, the opposite? U.S. law supposedly doesn't allow the NSA to conduct domestic intercept on US citizens except through "legal" means. There is no such protection for the NSA monitoring overseas communications. Didn't the NSA and GCHQ have to get each other to spy on each other's domestic data?But in a European datacenter, wouldn't the "gloves be off" with respect to NSA intercept? There wouldn't even be a need for a kangaroo FISA court or NSL.To me, this all seems like a total break with the spirit of the internet. I grew up on the internet in the 80s, where we actually imagined it transcending national concerns and local politics. Remember John Perry Barlow's Cyberspace Declaration of Independence? (<a href="https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html" rel="nofollow">https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html</a>)The whole point around federated decentralized networking, was common carriage of data, non-discrimination, and the fact that you could host a server and serve anyone from all around the world without having to worry about hundreds of different legal regimes stepping on your toes.Now it seems we've got the exact opposite of the internet imagined in the 80s and 90s, free of political interference. Instead, if you set up a server on the internet these days, you'll have to worry about European "rights to be forgotten" and privacy laws, Chinese or Russia censorship, Thai insults to the King, and on and on.The simplicity of "here's my site/app, if you don't like it, please don't use it", has been replaced with "please track the geo-ip of your users, make sure you host copies of your server in the EU, Russia, China, and elsewhere, and route traffic appropriately. Be ready to comply with 50 different national internet regulations, some of them contradictory."The internet of my teen years has become one giant bifurcated mess, and I fear what was once a kind of global village, will become a nation-by-nation silo.Sure, there may be very good reasons to want these regulations. But it's not clear to me that the ends justifies the means. It's not even clear to me that the state snooping has been as damaging as cyberattacks by criminal gangs stealing people's data. Every week passwords, credit cards, and other information is being compromised by hackers and sold on the black market. Millions of smartphones and PCs are infected with viruses, keyloggers, backdoors. And yet, all of the focus is on the government snoops.What's the right to privacy and data protection if your data is forced to be hosted locally in your nation, but compromised by hackers, and then sold to governments?Is the original idea of the internet and web worth preserving, a kind of autonomous zone, a wild wild west, or do we need to lock it down, and turn it into national highways with freeway cops and political speed limits?

评论 #10344688 未加载

评论 #10345982 未加载

dangover 9 years ago

We changed the linkbait title to a representative sentence from the article. If anyone can suggest a better (i.e. accurate and netural) title we can change it again.