Live data from Hacker News

US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

reuters.com

461–470 of 509 posts

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#461
post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

OP did.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#462
post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’ve read the GDPR has zero impacts on national security/law enforcement. It applies weakly to other state functions. I’ve also seen cases where GDPR is used against religious groups that have a strong religious justification for keeping lists of believers. Think Orthodox Jews and the Catholic Church, which regard family trees and baptismal certificates as semi-sacred. And kept on paper or scrolls. Not sure what to t…

The reason why we're not keeping lists of which people believe what religion, is because such lists were extremely useful to the nazis in WW2 when exterminating Jewish people.

> Think Orthodox Jews

Pretty sure they would remember why this is the case.

> Regulating a sacred scroll like a database table seems wrong.

There is actually no perceivable or material difference between something that is considered "sacred" and that which is not. It really hinges on whether some subset of some splinter of some religion considers it so.

But, I'm not familiar with these cases you mention, I think there's some details left out that should matter. The really weird thing to me, is that a sports club can keep a list of members easily (yes they need to abide by the GDPR but it's not hard), and if somehow a "religious group" can't manage that level of organization, I don't think their opinion on what objects are considered "sacred" should count for much, either.

Another issue is that "religious groups" can have a different opinion of who are their members and who they get to keep data on, and it doesn't matter whether those records are "sacred" or not, according to the GDPR it is not the "religious group", but the people whose data is being kept whose opinion counts. It would be ridiculous otherwise. I had to email a Church to stop tracking me (which happens if you're baptized as a baby), and that should be my choice, it would be insane if they could claim "yeah tough luck, but our records are sacred".

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if you meant to say what you said. By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign. I think it is what they are attempting to do at the moment, "stop pretending to be sovereign" and actually BE sovereign. At least that seems to be the claimed attempt. If anyone is not sure why I would say that Europe is not sovereign, I will answer that question if you ask, but considering the current stat…

The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? Maybe. But how many millions dead Americans? US lost in Afghanistan and there they just fought terrorists.

Also, what would they win? The death of their wealthiest customers?

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet I don’t think I’ve ever seen it.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignorance is a Weapon. Much of the US media is captured, so virtually nothing is fed back to us Americans. This also builds on top of US gunboat diplomacy going all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine. Keeping Americans ignorant allows our government and corporations a free hand in foreign affairs. The limited information allowed through is heavily sanitized and depicts US actions as the Good Guys attacked by the Evi…

I find it hard to look at the actions of the Japanese and the Americans in the late 1930s and come away with any other impression than that the Americans were the good guys.

In war, there are no good guys. Just guys that aren't as bad

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve read the GDPR has zero impacts on national security/law enforcement. It applies weakly to other state functions. I’ve also seen cases where GDPR is used against religious groups that have a strong religious justification for keeping lists of believers. Think Orthodox Jews and the Catholic Church, which regard family trees and baptismal certificates as semi-sacred. And kept on paper or scrolls. Not sure what to t…

The reason why we're not keeping lists of which people believe what religion, is because such lists were extremely useful to the nazis in WW2 when exterminating Jewish people. > Think Orthodox Jews Pretty sure they would remember why this is the case. > Regulating a sacred scroll like a database table seems wrong. There is actually no perceivable or material difference between something that is considered "sacred" an…

> There is actually no perceivable or material difference between something that is considered "sacred" and that which is not. It really hinges on whether some subset of some splinter of some religion considers it so.

What? To many people, the Bible is just a book. To Christians its sacred. This doesn't mean it's immutable (the original Bible wasn't in English after all), it just means it's important to them.

For the records, the records themselves could be sacred, but the practical implications of them are not sacred. But if Catholics have a sacred record of everyone who had been baptized at a church, then that should be different from their mailing list. God did not instruct the chrich to email everyone who was ever baptized there. Plus, at some point in the church's age, there will be more dead people on the list of people who were baptized than alive people. It doesn't make sense to send an email blast to more dead people than alive, so they must trim the mailing list every so often.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#467
post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? Maybe. But how many millions dead Americans? US lost in Afghanistan and there they just fought terrorists.

Also, what would they win? The death of their wealthiest customers?

Exactly

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#468
post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? Maybe. But how many millions dead Americans? US lost in Afghanistan and there they just fought terrorists.

The US (like any country) struggles in asymmetrical/guerilla warfare. It always devolves to the famous statement by a US officer during the Vietnam war that “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.” If the gloves were off then the equation would be different. A fight with the rest of NATO would be conventional warfare where the US has a giant advantage.

Good luck resisting nukes on American cities. It will be easier to occupy all of China than trying to occupy the rest of NATO. No one seriously thinks US could defeat and occupy rest of NATO.

How many million Americans dead to capture it? How many million Americans will die during the occupation when we resist? Does Americans even wanna go to Europe and occupy Europe and have a legitimate target on their back?

What is even the longterm plan? Concentration camps? Or do you think people will suddenly accept American occupation?

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, where everything can give you cancer, do people consider that a failure of the companies putting the notices on everything, or a failure of government?

That's a failure of government because the law mandates the notice in so many places that it becomes pointless noise. Cookie banners are not analogous. It's easy to make a web site that doesn't need cookie banners. It's actually easier to make a site that doesn't need them than to make one that does. Adding in the tracking that requires banner takes effort. But companies prefer to put in that effort and annoy their u…

> That's a failure of government because the law mandates the notice in so many places that it becomes pointless noise.

Or we all just don’t take toxins seriously enough.

Not saying there isn’t alert fatigue - just that, in this case, not too many unwarranted alerts…

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? Maybe. But how many millions dead Americans? US lost in Afghanistan and there they just fought terrorists.

> The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? what are you even talking about? nowhere is anybody on any side even hinting that the problem with NATO is it stops the EU from having a war with the US. the problem with NATO is that it shares a burden and some feel they don't want to pay their obligations and some feel their share is too much, and then it was based around invasion of the territories of wes…

If US invades a NATO country it has to fight all of NATO. Trump says he plans to invade Denmark. Do you deny that Trump said he might invade and occupy Denmark?
Post reply on HN