Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#191

Post by dgellow »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139
dgellow wrote: post #114

Earlier 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…

> We are too afraid of change and having to take responsibilities It's unclear whether Europe can continue to exist with its current social guarantees without American security guarantees. It isn't a matter of subsidy. Just scale. Building a parallel security establishment will leave America and Europe poorer. But Europe's cost will be its welfare state.

Maybe, we will see. I'm doubtful we need to fully replace the US. I don't believe that we will actually see Russia do a ground invasion of the EU, so for example the massive militarization Germany is going for doesn't make too much sense IMHO. If things continue to go in that direction that will indeed be ruinous. What we need is more, better coordination and team work between the member countries

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#192

Post by tremon »

maratc wrote: post #65
eesmith wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the skimmer, the advocacy group was founded by Maximilian Schrems, whose legal cases first got the European Court of Justice to overturn the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (which described how a US company could legally store private data on EU citizens), and then got the ECJ to overturn EU–US Privacy Shield, which replaced the Safe Harbor principles. These decisions are known as Schrems I and Schre…

You could both be right: Shrems III could be in the works, and TLA could be presenting their legal analysis as an established fact. In other words, (a) no, the "US Supreme Court" didn't "Just Bl[ow] Up EU-US Data Transfers" – there's nothing in the decision even remotely addressing the transfers (nor the EU!) – but (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.)

Alternatively, you could perhaps read the summary at the top of the article and see that the actual analysis goes as follows:

a) According to EU treaty law, the oversight on EU-US Data Transfers must be independent

b) In the current EU-US deal, the European Commission relies on the independent FTC 259 times

c) the US Supreme Court decided in Trump v. Slaughter that the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may not be independent anymore

It is completely immaterial that the Supreme Grift ruling was not about the data transfers itself -- this is just some fallout from an activist court creatively reinterpreting established legal structures.

> (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.

Given that the closing paragraph contains the sentence "given that the US still exercises massive pressure on the EU to keep personal data flowing, noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks, aiming to allow the CJEU to annul the current deal" I think it's pretty clear that it will.

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#193

Post by joe_mamba »

CalRobert wrote: post #180
joe_mamba wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Wow, if only it were possible to build new homes. Can we do it in your back yard? I like how people assume every country has unlimited free space for housing and all you have to do is just build more.

Yes! Please yes! I’d love to see more homes built in my town near Utrecht and have supported plans to do so. It’s idyllic and we should try to help more people who want to live like this be able to do so. Ironically my childhood home in California has a Dutch family living in it. Small world.

Respect

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#194

Post by drstewart »

kakacik wrote: post #143
dgellow wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can and should do both at the same time

some would even say its one broad stroke of brush that somehow ends up covering both

I agree, Europe taking care of it's shit for once rule solve a lot of problems for America

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#195

Post by bambax »

AndroTux wrote: post #71
bambax wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU should cut all ties with the US, tax US products and impose costly (and difficult to get) visas to American citizens wanting to visit. It won't do any of this because it has no balls and no vision. We're doomed and it's our fault.

They should, but the entire EU economy runs on US clouds. It's hard enough to get new hardware as it is (US hardware btw), so how should the EU, especially today, move to sovereign clouds within the next few years? I'd argue every single EU business with more than five employees would be impacted by such a decision. Just pulling the plug would be economic suicide.

Yes, just pulling the plug overnight is impossible. But preparing to pull the plug so that it becomes possible is not just sound, it is indispensable, because some day, the plug could be pulled by someone and if we're not prepared, we will be in dire straits indeed.

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#196

Post by bambax »

rusk wrote: post #55
bambax wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU should cut all ties with the US, tax US products and impose costly (and difficult to get) visas to American citizens wanting to visit. It won't do any of this because it has no balls and no vision. We're doomed and it's our fault.

> no balls and no vision Seems to me they’re waiting it out. Everything could change in a presidential election and the European economy wins either way. It is an economic bloc after all. What you describe would be what’s called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”

> Everything could change in a presidential election

No. It's the US who's a bully, as a country. The Trump administration is the worst so far, sure, but the US has always behaved as if they owned the world.

There is only one way to deal with bullies, and it's not to be nice and hope they forget about you. It's to stand your ground, not give an inch, and reciprocate.

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#197

Post by roysting »

soco wrote: post #113
roysting wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

And the installed system is, let me guess, the reptilians from their base in the inner Earth?

Why would you guess something like that? You seem rather confused and clearly are far more confident than informed.

Most Americans don’t even understand basic things like what NATO actually is, let alone Europeans. The peasants have never understood the palace intrigue.

Some you’re guessing; want to guess whether you are a peasant? Or do you want to explain how supreme allied command functions and what role it plays in the geopolitical harness over the world?

So many clowns, not enough circuses, kid.

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#198

Post by maratc »

tremon wrote: post #192
maratc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could both be right: Shrems III could be in the works, and TLA could be presenting their legal analysis as an established fact. In other words, (a) no, the "US Supreme Court" didn't "Just Bl[ow] Up EU-US Data Transfers" – there's nothing in the decision even remotely addressing the transfers (nor the EU!) – but (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.)

Alternatively, you could perhaps read the summary at the top of the article and see that the actual analysis goes as follows: a) According to EU treaty law, the oversight on EU-US Data Transfers must be independent b) In the current EU-US deal, the European Commission relies on the independent FTC 259 times c) the US Supreme Court decided in Trump v. Slaughter that the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may not be i…

> you could perhaps read the summary at the top of the article

I did.

> “FTC” may not be independent anymore

It may, or it may not; we don't know. We don't know what EU Courts hold as a criterion for "independence," and we don't know what they will decide regarding that "independence" in light of the new fact that POTUS can fire its chief. People simply aren't good in reading the judges' minds, as evidenced by their going to courts -- if both sides could read minds, there wouldn't be any purpose in going to courts, after all. And don't underestimate the creativity of the courts -- they can align with one side, or the other, or produce an opinion completely different from both sides'.

I understand that the advocacy group in question considers this new fact as evidence that FTC is not independent anymore, but that doesn't matter; we need the courts' opinion, not my opinion or your opinion or the advocacy group's opinion. As stated, what we have in the article are predictions about future; I'm not saying these predictions are wrong and I'm not saying these predictions are right, I'm saying these are simply predictions and not facts.

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#199

Post by fatata123 »

shevy-java wrote: post #78
manueltgomes wrote: post #49

Switching to EU companies is often the solution, but also we're in a tricky position in Europe since alternatives exist but can't compete with US. So finding European alternatives is possible but hard. Also EU is doing its job enforcing privacy and anti-competition laws but then American companies just say "feature not available in EU" (like Apple is doing more and more for example), making things even harder to swit…

This is even worse. For instance, in a medical university, we recently were told we need a smartphone and install an app from Google store (!!!), in order to read emails sent out by officials at the medical university. I protested to that but they had a deal already with the private company and their signature meant they had to keep on being addicted to that private company, so now I am locked out of receiving emails…

[dead]

Re: US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

#200

Post by eesmith »

maratc wrote: post #184
eesmith wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

When someone says "China blew up its own future" as at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47850045 and presents an argument based on decreasing birth rates as a consequence of previous policies, of course that's a prediction about the future written in past perfect tense.

When The Atlantic has an article with subtitle "How X blew up its own platform with a new location feature", linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46042350 , that's again a prediction about the future written in past perfect tense.

Same for "OpenAI is highly overvalued and DeepSeek just blew up their business model, says NYU's Gary Marcus", from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42856656

When The Verge writes "A judge just blew up Apple’s control of the App Store", linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851672, that's yet another prediction about the future written in the past perfect tense -- and it's specifically a prediction about the consequences of a court decision!

Another court one, also from The Verge, "A court just blew up internet law because it thinks YouTube isn’t a website", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31368999

Nor, clearly, does making the "blew up" claim necessarily mean those stated claims are inevitable.

You are of course free to object that such claims are inappropriate unless proven in a court of law or by the fullness of time, but I find that sort of highly non-standard interpretation both contrary to easily found existing practice, and tiresome quibbling.

Post reply on HN