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

US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 509 posts

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#421

Post by DANmode »

mghackerlady wrote: post #240
Analemma_ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU is to blame for cookie banners on basically every website on the internet. This is the most low-rent complaint imaginable and it boggles my mind how I keep seeing it made straight-faced. One time I literally timed how long it took me to dismiss a EU cookie banner, it was about 350ms and only needs to be done once per site. All this outrage is over 350ms and I cannot take it seriously.

Also, why would you not want cookie banners? I prefer being able to choose to opt out of them, even if it's annoying

Because the law probably should have mandated functionality-only cookies until I disclaim my right to privacy,

such as when creating an account, or doing anything to provide consent besides loading the domain.

Instead, we normalized breaking the site by covering 80% of it so the standard user clicks the first thing that brings the site back: Accept (giving me the 80 advertiser tracking cookies!!1!)

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#422

Post by DANmode »

dmix wrote: post #391
pyuser583 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European countries aren’t known for strong privacy against the state. There are exceptions, but the EU’s “privacy rights” are almost exclusively against corporations. American privacy, by contrast, is almost exclusively focused on state surveillance. There are holes, the biggest being that foreigners on foreign soil have no privacy rights. Nor do the dead. But I’m not impressed with the “rights” Europeans have agains…

I read an article that dug into public GDPR cases, which is a surprisingly small set, and it explained they have had a near zero impact on the massive advertising and data broker industry. They mostly just have a large back log of legal cases against large US companies like Google which occasionally result in fines - but even that moves very very slowly and has little impact on their global business models. They do a…

Not “nobody” - just not as many people they’re value-extracting from now. So why change?

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#423

Post by gip »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #386
fatal94 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No amount of legislation can stop subpoenas, wiretapping and other extrajudicial means the US has used for data surveillance since the inception of the Patriot Act. With data privacy increasingly becoming a critical matter of national security, strengthening data sovereignty laws and holding corporations accountable was always the way forward.

This is untrue. Subpoenas, wiretapping, and other extrajudicial means can be stopped by legislation that bans them. You can't say in one breath that legislation that enables it (Patriot Act) cannot be undone by more legislation. There are many hurdles required to produce the required legislation, which may not even be broadly supported by the public, but it isn't correct to say "no amount of legislation can stop exis…

That would require to repeal the FISA and the Patriot acts. That won't happen.

More fundamentally, however, the US constitution only protects Americans and American companies. Europeans would be foolish to trust the US with their data given this lack of basic protection and oversight.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#424

Post by oblio »

roger110 wrote: post #407
oblio wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read your links and you're misreading them. 1. GDPR applies to EU residents in the EU. The protection does not apply to EU residents going on trips to the US. 2. Based on the examples they've presented, there is a SUPER clean solution to your concerns. Geo-blocking. Problem solved, bye bye GDPR. But don't go crying for EU citizen money, can't have it both ways. Just read the examples they present, they're fairly…

I'm pretty sure this is right, except does geo-blocking legally release you from the liability of an EU citizen using a VPN?

1. From you own link:

> But the GDPR does not apply to occasional instances. Rather, regulators look for other clues to determine whether the organization set out to offer goods and services to people in the EU. To do so, they’ll look for things like whether, for example, a Canadian company created ads in German or included pricing in euros on its website. In other words, if your company is not in the EU but you cater to EU customers, then you should strive to be GDPR compliant.

2. As a general rule Europeans are MUCH less lawsuit addicted than Americans. Plus the way the GDPR works is that generally complaints are filed with a government agency that investigates.

You analysis starts from a position of deep fear.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#425

Post by roger110 »

wat10000 wrote: post #418
roger110 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How easy is it really, seeing how nearly every website ends up having them? Even if they don't think it's needed, seems the legal risk isn't worth.

It’s not the legal risk, it’s the desire to track users. How often have you seen a cookie banner that says “we only set cookies when it’s essential to the site’s functionality so there’s nothing for you to opt out of”?

It's almost every site big and small, so there must be plenty of cases where they don't even want to track users.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#426

Post by roger110 »

oblio wrote: post #424
roger110 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure this is right, except does geo-blocking legally release you from the liability of an EU citizen using a VPN?

1. From you own link: > But the GDPR does not apply to occasional instances. Rather, regulators look for other clues to determine whether the organization set out to offer goods and services to people in the EU. To do so, they’ll look for things like whether, for example, a Canadian company created ads in German or included pricing in euros on its website. In other words, if your company is not in the EU but you cate…

I didn't post a link

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#427

Post by cyanydeez »

cowboylowrez wrote: post #384
cyanydeez wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, everyone who works on the bunker will know about it; and all these billionaires are trying to build their survivalist camps but dont actually consider any of the easily/practically broken parts of society they implicitly rely on. Realistically, society we know it won't survive if it dwindles to beneath a couple of millions.

yeah but also realistically if you have the money you don't build a bunker, you build a pseudo military installation, and ex military is where you find your "handymen" to take care of "housekeeping." of course, your ex military pals should be consulted regarding real estate because even here its location location location.

But in the event of societal collapse, your ex military has zero that binds you to them.

That's what's the fallacy. You need the rest of the trappings of modern society to keep wealthy in power.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#428

Post by nehal3m »

philipallstar wrote: post #335
nehal3m wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously. What's your point? Do you mean to tell me nothing changed in how the US tariffs their imports?

No, I'm saying what you said was misleading at best, because tariffs already existed.

Again, obviously. Tariffs were an economic precision instrument and the threat of them a form of soft power. Now they’re a bully’s spiked club. Which is the implication of my original comment had you applied some good faith and reading comprehension.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#429

Post by xyzal »

danny_codes wrote: post #236
bad_haircut72 wrote: post #199

The shame of all this is that now every country will have a worse, more expensive - but yes, soveriegn - solution, and the US makes less money through trade. Everyone loses, except people who want to hurt western economies.

Or maybe a better product that’s cheaper. Let’s not let hubris get the best of us. There’s nothing special about the US. I mean imagine being an Oracle customer and switching to a local supplier. Must be like emerging from a nightmare

Lack of regulation is US' advantage. Which has of course also its downsides, like an extractive healthcare system.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#430

Post by Frieren »

ta9000 wrote: post #416
roger110 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the US basically sees DMA, GDPR, etc as a tariff

It’s definitely made browsing the open web a worse experience. There should be global opt in/out.

> There should be global opt in/out.

They should not be. That there is people willing to give their data to big corporations and foreign countries by extension puts everybody at risk. It is a matter of national security and it should not be allowed, no opt in option.

Post reply on HN