271–280 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government spying on citizens is one thing. Companies is another. GDPR applies mostly to the latter, and in practice, today , most people in Europe aren't being harmed by their governments spying on them, but they are being harmed by private business abusing personal data.
I would much rather companies “spy” on me than the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative question: has breaking European laws become a major American industry?
If it is then Europe doesn't seem too upset about it. How could they be when it pays them so well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government spying on citizens is one thing. Companies is another. GDPR applies mostly to the latter, and in practice, today , most people in Europe aren't being harmed by their governments spying on them, but they are being harmed by private business abusing personal data.
I would much rather companies “spy” on me than the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Silly question, the EU simply has stricter privacy and data protection laws. As these came into effect relatively recently, a lot of these companies are trying to see what they can get away with. Or at the very least taking a calculated risk that the regulation authorities are not going after them. So the only way to actually get them to respect these laws is by attaching actual tangible consequences to breaking them…
I know EU has stronger data privacy laws. I just wonder if they're really all that upset about American companies breaking them. They get to use the new tech and fine the companies that bring that tech to them. It's a win-win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Silly question, the EU simply has stricter privacy and data protection laws. As these came into effect relatively recently, a lot of these companies are trying to see what they can get away with. Or at the very least taking a calculated risk that the regulation authorities are not going after them. So the only way to actually get them to respect these laws is by attaching actual tangible consequences to breaking them…
I know EU has stronger data privacy laws. I just wonder if they're really all that upset about American companies breaking them. They get to use the new tech and fine the companies that bring that tech to them. It's a win-win.
Funny thing is, us data is almost always maintained by people outside of the US, at least for banking. The servers may live in the us, but the people accessing it are probably located in Europe or India. This also means that the data lives their temporarily while it is being accessed. The US definitely needs stronger laws here.
NAL, but I think GDPR has exceptions for remote access, i.e. if a worker in India is viewing data held in the US, that is not necessarily formally considered a transfer from the US to India, even though the data clearly has made it to India if it's being displayed on a screen there.
But if you are subcontracting to an agency you need to list them as Subprocessors in your DPA. So subcontracted support staffing companies for example would be required to be listed and explicitly consented to.
This is all assuming you set up the base contractual protections for the data required to export the data at all, which Iber apparently didn’t do here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a very steep fine > > The appeals process is expected to take some four years and any fines are suspended until all legal recourses have been exhausted, according to the DPA. fine is suspended. it will take 4 years of appeals :)
Once again demonstrating that fining a corporation for criminal behavior is simply adding to their operating cost, and the lawyers will always get paid
what is the major insight that you are trying to share?
This puts the total fines from the EU on American tech businesses at $14.8B in the last few years: https://loeber.substack.com/p/20-no-more-eu-fines-for-big-te... I think this substack is good, it makes a pretty clear case that US tech companies may not leave Europe any time soon, but they wield the power in the relationship much more so than the Europeans. Those regulators are overplaying their hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this take is naive. building alternatives takes time and resources. the EU has neither. a diverse, competitive tech ecosystem with both EU and non-EU players is better than a protectionist approach. hoping for an exodus of major global players when you’re leapfrogged by both China and the US…
>building alternatives takes time and resources. the EU has neither. This is kind of a FUD fueled false dichotomy, when the truth is we can't know if the EU doesn't have time or resources if it never tries. What the US has that EU doesn't is the infinte money to throw in the bonfire at moonshot projects knowing that 99% will fail and the 1% will be hugely successful, but now the market is mature with less untapped op…
at a macro level i don’t think things stand still waiting for the europeans to catch up. i think things are moving extremely fast and you either adapt or “stagnate”.