Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switching to EU companies is easy. Switching to EU companies that don't have American companies as sub-processors is a lot harder.
What's hard? Just switch.
[deleted]
US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
181–190 of 207 posts
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#182Doing business with the US is just impossible these days. If this trend continues any further the US is gonna end up a piranha state with no allies and no business partners. I'm really not sure what consequences that'll have for the rest of the world, but it looks like we're about to find out
As long as US dollar remains the reserve currency, others will have to suck up to the US. This is why moving away from the USD is critical. Beyond that, people should pull their investments away from the US. This is difficult, however: US is the market that offers most returns (as to for how long, that remains to be seen), but it takes only a initial dominos falling.
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks", from the person/group who brought us Shrems I and Shrems II, counts enough as "Shrems III could be in the works". Don't you? The linked article does not present their legal analysis and call for action as established fact.
It's ok to disagree. If the SCOTUS decision in question had any wording to the tune of "the EU-US data transfers need to stop," it would be fitting to say that the "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers." However it did not, so it wouldn't.
I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.
I don't know what your point is. There is no need for the US Supreme Court, in its decision to endow the President with "unitary executive" power, to elaborate all of the things they blew up to get there.
It's not like West Virginia v. EPA elaborated all the emissions regulations which were blown up by the "major questions doctrine."
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ok to disagree. If the SCOTUS decision in question had any wording to the tune of "the EU-US data transfers need to stop," it would be fitting to say that the "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers." However it did not, so it wouldn't.
I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis. I don't know what your point is. There is no need for the US Supreme Court, in its decision to endow the President with "unitary executive" power, to elaborate all of the things they blew up to get there. It's not like West Virginia v. EPA elaborated all the emissions regulations which were blown up by the "major questions doctrine."
> I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.
I meant that it's ok for you and me to disagree.
> I don't know what your point is
My point is this: Shrems III may or may not be filed, if and when it's filed the relevant court may or may not decide to review it, if they decide to proceed they may reach many different conclusions, one of the possible outcomes being a blow-up in the EU-US data transfers. Then we will we be able, with the benefit of the hindsight, conclude that the SCOTUS decision in question indeed blew up the transfers.
But we're not there yet. At this point in time "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers" is a prediction about the future. It is however written in past perfect tense as if it's already happened. But what's happened is the SCOTUS decision only. Whether it will, or will not, blow up the data transfers — still remains to be seen.
I'm not saying that this will not happen; all I'm saying is that "blowing up of the data transfers" will happen when an actual court will decide that it's the consequence, not when some advocacy group will decide that it's the consequence.
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#185Doing business with the US is just impossible these days. If this trend continues any further the US is gonna end up a piranha state with no allies and no business partners. I'm really not sure what consequences that'll have for the rest of the world, but it looks like we're about to find out
The EU will rely on US tech forever because it is literally not possible to create an EU alternative in that business climate. There are no major EU clouds, nor are there any major EU software services and there never will be because the EU is the worst place in the entire world for startups (try starting a company in Germany or France).
> nor are there any major EU software services and there never will be
SAP and Spotify come to my mind first. Some ex-EU services include Skype and Booking.com (latter might still be counted as EU service depending on definition).
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switching to EU companies is easy. Switching to EU companies that don't have American companies as sub-processors is a lot harder.
What's hard? Just switch.
The point they're making is that it's hard to find purely European alternatives. Part of the problem is that companies don't advertise when they somehow still depend on American infra.
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#187The EU keeps trying to manifest the missing european data infrastructure via data regulation instead of outright bans and limits on american companies, the way China did it.
Outright bans would destroy European companies that rely on American companies. First they need to build their own infrastructure (which China has done).
China was really only able to build out their own infrastructure because of blocking American companies starting early on, though. Europe may just be fucked...
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPs are personal information afaik
That has gone back and forth numerous times over the decades, particularly in legal cases concerning unlicensed content sharing. I think the consensus ATM is that they generally aren't on their own, largely because most network access is through shared NAT arrangements. At most an IP address (definitely v4, v6 depending on your arrangement) identifies a household or office, not an individual, and “it seems someone ha…
You are somewhat confusing two distinct concepts. IP addresses are considered to be personal data because they can be linked to single individual and controller is allowed to give this personal data to someone who can do the linking (e.g. police who can then request logs from ISP or NAT connection logs from the company).
Now it doesn't mean it will always link to single individual, but unless controller can be sure that there are always at least 2 people behind the IP and the devices on that side do not keep enough information to ever link IP+timestamp+destination service to single individual, the controller essentially must assume that IP address is personal data.
This is different from civil liabilities. National courts determine what is the threshold for that. For example in Finland the court has ruled that if the owner of the car cannot name the person who parked the then the presumption is that they did it and are responsible for parking contract breach (KKO 2026:24). National courts could end up with similar ruling for civil liability for sharing content, i.e. assumption that the IP owner either is the person who shared it or knows who they did it & if they refuse to name the person then presumption is that they did it.
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reduced worker protections -[somehow]-> better worker output. /s
Check Swiss worker protections compared to France or Germany and then check their economy and tech companies there. Biggest Google office outside the US is in Switzerland. It's not better worker output, it's faster movement and pivoting to rapid changing market conditions as a company, if you can get rid of slackers that abuse unions and worker protections to coast and do nothing.
[dead]
Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know why the EU wants to trust the USA so bad, it's clearly unwise We are too afraid of change and having to take responsibilities. Delegating to the US worked for decades, and it’s very hard to accept that we’ve done a mistake and need to take some risks ourselves. I feel it’s the same issue we have at European countries level. But also, the EU is still a patchwork of entities that do not have a common vis…
> the EU is still a patchwork of entities that do not have a common vision of what the future should be For many, that's a feature, not a bug. The EU follows a democratic system consisting of many different countries with different types of government and different ideologies. It's not a unified federal government, as much as some people would like it to be. The whole 28th regime concept seems extremely flawed to me.…
> but as a citizen I do not want a company to opt out of national legal protections and obligations by operating under some fantasy government.
There is no opt-out, if the proposal is accepted the country members would define a new legal form. You would still have national oversight, legal obligation and protection. But you would get access to a new company form that is recognized in and common to all member countries.
But yes, if you do not want more unification then it's likely not something you want to see. I personally believe that we are currently handicapping ourselves with the current, unfinished single market. I want to see an actual EU federation, where we develop a share vision, take risks together, and simplify the flow of capital and people between country members.
The other concept I'm following with interest is uniting European stock exchanges