EU proposes law forcing manufacturers to share data In proposals aimed at IoT and machine data, the European Commission has put forward the Data Act, which promises to force manufacturers to share streams of after-sale data with third-party tech firms. margrethe vestager EU Commission executive vice president Margrethe Vestager In a move set to shake up the market for …
If I buy a product then the data generated by the product which is sent to the manufacturer, is about ME. Therefore, the data is MINE, not the manufacturer's and I have every right to know what is collected and control how it is used.
While I can see the positive sides of the proposed law for consumers, I am less enamoured with the statement:
'In light of the pandemic, public-sector bodies will be given access to data held by the private sector in exceptional circumstances, "particularly in case of a public emergency, such as floods and wildfires, or to implement a legal mandate if data are not otherwise available," the commission said.'
That sounds like a convenient back door to further increase the type of surveillance so beloved by many European countries without falling foul of the EU court's rulings against treating everyone as if they are criminal suspects.
'Vestager said the Act aimed "to remove commercial technical contractual obstacles that still prevent customers from switching between cloud services."'
A great aim, but the practicalities may prove hard to achieve. I've found cloud migration one of the most difficult data management tasks to perform, not least because document presentation frequently breaks, challenging legal integrity.
We need to find a way of working with the Americans that is in accordance with this in order not to get a negative Schrems III judgment. It is a priority for us in order to enable the business community to make the most of data under safe and transparent conditions."
How about just not effing send it to US.
"Mandating organizations in the EU to share the data they own — or, equally, restricting them from sharing or transferring data to third countries — will not only prevent EU businesses from reaping the full benefits of the digital transition but will render them less able to innovate and compete effectively in global markets."
My heart bleeds. Re-evaluate the business then. Accept that your customers are not the product.
Also how about mandating publication of protocols used for any "cloud enabled" (in many cases which there is no choice) tat so that once the vendor is dead or abandoned the product it will at least be possible to recreate the backend (or build one to avoid the vendor one in the first place...).
@Down not across
"How about just not effing send it to US."
Thats one way to make the European product more expensive or non-existent.
"My heart bleeds. Re-evaluate the business then. Accept that your customers are not the product."
But they are. If you want to get something untracked then go spend the cash for an offline product etc (like most products are). If you want an IOT cloud serviced dowaffer then chances are its an ongoing beta and you are the tester, or that the price is so low because you pay in cash but also in data. And it isnt inherently wrong.
But the point is NO. I DO NOT want an IOT cloud serviced car or TV or clothes washer.
The problem is you *can't* buy one without. Try buying a TV that isn't "smart" in some way or another and wants an internet connection. Or buying a Ford/GM product without OnStar or whatever the fuck they call it.
So yes, it's inherently wrong.
@Gene Cash
"But the point is NO. I DO NOT want an IOT cloud serviced car or TV or clothes washer."
Great! Fantastic! Me either! And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything! If you dont want it dont buy it.
"The problem is you *can't* buy one without"
Really? Maybe I am lucky or of greater skill but none of mine are IOT.
"Try buying a TV that isn't "smart" in some way or another and wants an internet connection"
I have 3 here. I dont want a smart one.
"Or buying a Ford/GM product without OnStar or whatever the fuck they call it."
Is this a US issue maybe? I am in the UK.
Why is that a problem, or more exactly, for whom is it a problem? If companies don’t want to make a product that fits your wishes…they don’t have to. So don’t watch TV.
In other news, I personally would prefer that small cars were still being made like they used to be, without all the messing around and add-ons. With modern manufacturing efficiency, I bet you could make a bare bones sixties Mini Cooper new for a couple of grand. I’d buy one. Unfortunately car companies have decided they’d “prefer not to”, so BMW made a balloon car instead. It’s a commercial decision.
Thats one way to make the European product more expensive or non-existent.
Did I say anywhere I was not willing to pay fair price for a product where my data was not snaffled up?
If the product can't exist without data being shipped to US then it probably shouoldn't exist either.
But they are. If you want to get something untracked then go spend the cash for an offline product etc (like most products are).
Where did I say I wasn't willing to do that? Bear in mind that some products insist on some "cloudiness" (say Logitech's Harmony remotes... no, i wasn't willing to support that model and voted with my wallet to stay away from them).
Some SOHO routers/gateways seem to also exhibit similar tendencies (Linksys for example) and again thankfully there are better products without that and I have been and am happy to pay fairly for a decent product.
(and no I didn't downvote you, as I am happy to engage in discussion/debate and stand by my views while accepting others view things differently)
@Down not across
"Did I say anywhere I was not willing to pay fair price for a product where my data was not snaffled up?"
Did I say you wouldnt pay more for such a feature? And you are of course welcome to do so anyway. As a result this should not be an issue for you. What you do say is dont send data to the US which sounds like a blanket ban that would affect other people not just you and your preferences.
"no, i wasn't willing to support that model and voted with my wallet to stay away from them"
Good. I wouldnt either. I like offline tech unless I want something specifically for online use. And we can do so easy enough. I also dont believe my way is the only way and people should be free to choose.
"(and no I didn't downvote you, as I am happy to engage in discussion/debate and stand by my views while accepting others view things differently)"
Dont worry about it. I dont really worry about the XFactor approach, discussion is worth much more.
Did I say you wouldnt pay more for such a feature? And you are of course welcome to do so anyway. As a result this should not be an issue for you. What you do say is dont send data to the US which sounds like a blanket ban that would affect other people not just you and your preferences.
You make a fair point there. My preferences should not impact/limit others' as I would expect nothing less in return. What I would like is a meaningful choice (not just whether to purchase a product or not) of where my data (yes yes, there is a whole another argument of whose data is it) goes.
Sorry, what is there to negociate ?
The US does not get EU citizen's data. Simple.
I can agree to an exception when an EU citizen is physically going to the US, but that is it.
And if the White House don't like it, it can stuff it where the sun don't shine.
@Pascal Monett
"And if the White House don't like it, it can stuff it where the sun don't shine."
That works until the realisation that cutting the EU off from the outside world hurts the EU, its them who dont like it. The EU looks with envy at the US global giants and wish the EU had an alternative... except within a highly restrictive framework that stops such from being developed.
The EU could wall itself off from the world and even go full iron curtain if they like. And we know how it goes from past experience and current hermit kingdoms.
Yeah, it does. And that simply directly conflicts with the Constitution of the USA, which states that it’s citizens remain under its jurisdiction wherever they are in the world. Both as regards their data privacy, and for example tax.
You can disapprove if you like, but it is just the way their system works, as yours is the way yours works.
In any negotiation, either side can just walk away, and in this case the EU will just have to accept that violating the US Constitution is a redline for the US. The EU either compromises on this edge case for GDPR,or accepts that it can no longer import US tech goods at all. Thats the Safe Harbour nego that needs to complete in the next few weeks. It’s a choice.
No, that’s the system of international law *you* want. The US has a different view. They understand perfectly your point of view, they just don’t share it. The problem with international law is that isn’t real, it bends to the reality of power balance.
When Iran annoyed the US over, frankly, not very much other than not just kneeling at the altar, the EU blacklisted all their banks and cut them off from the SWIFT system. When Russia invades Ukraine…all the EU have to say is “Putin’s a very naughty boy”. And I think they’re right, by the way. The EU have zero power in that relationship, and would simply get a lot more people killed if they tried.
I recently helped my elderly neighbor set up her new HP printer. Should be pretty simple, USB cable, maybe a driver, and it starts printing. Nope. The damn thing needed to be on the WiFi, an account needed to be created, and a long EULA agreed to. Only then would the USB port be available.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot does a printer need to be on the Internet for?
Of course, it is to track ink usage and be able market to the customer after the sale. And make a hand grab at a credit card to automatically ship overpriced official OEM ink for "convenience". I explained the privacy implications to my neighbor, but they were not heard over the loud rebuttal.... "But it was such a great price!!
This garbage won't stop until we decide to not allow it.
Some authorities in Europe insist that location data is not personal data as defined by the EU's General Data Protection Regulation.
EU privacy group NOYB (None of your business), set up by privacy warrior Max "Angry Austrian" Schrems, said on Tuesday it appealed a decision of the Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEPD) to support Virgin Telco's refusal to provide the location data it has stored about a customer.
In Spain, according to NOYB, the government still requires telcos to record the metadata of phone calls, text messages, and cell tower connections, despite Court of Justice (CJEU) decisions that prohibit data retention.
Interview In June, Purism began shipping a privacy-focused smartphone called Librem 5 USA that runs on a version of Linux called PureOS rather than Android or iOS. As the name suggests, it's made in America – all the electronics are assembled in its Carlsbad, California facility, using as many US-fabricated parts as possible.
While past privacy-focused phones, such as Silent Circle's Android-based Blackphone failed to win much market share, the political situation is different now than it was seven years ago.
Supply-chain provenance has become more important in recent years, thanks to concerns about the national security implications of foreign-made tech gear. The Librem 5 USA comes at a cost, starting at $1,999, though there are now US government agencies willing to pay that price for homegrown hardware they can trust – and evidently tech enthusiasts, too.
American lawmakers held a hearing on Tuesday to discuss a proposed federal information privacy bill that many want yet few believe will be approved in its current form.
The hearing, dubbed "Protecting America's Consumers: Bipartisan Legislation to Strengthen Data Privacy and Security," was overseen by the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Therein, legislators and various concerned parties opined on the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) [PDF], proposed by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA).
Alibaba's financial services affiliate, Ant Group, has open sourced its "privacy-preserving Computation Framework."
The goal of the release, according to an Ant announcement, is "to make the technologies more accessible to global developers and speed up the framework's application."
The Framework, called SecretFlow, can be found on both GitHub and China's analog Gitee. In the repos you'll find code for:
Period- and fertility-tracking apps have become weapons in Friday's post-Roe America.
These seemingly innocuous trackers contain tons of data about sexual history, menstruation and pregnancy dates, all of which could now be used to prosecute women seeking abortions — or incite digital witch hunts in states that offer abortion bounties.
Under a law passed last year in Texas, any citizen who successfully sues an abortion provider, a health center worker, or anyone who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks can claim at least $10,000, and other US states are following that example.
California lawmakers met in Sacramento today to discuss, among other things, proposed legislation to protect children online. The bill, AB2273, known as The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, would require websites to verify the ages of visitors.
Critics of the legislation contend this requirement threatens the privacy of adults and the ability to use the internet anonymously, in California and likely elsewhere, because of the role the Golden State's tech companies play on the internet.
"First, the bill pretextually claims to protect children, but it will change the Internet for everyone," said Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law professor, in a blog post. "In order to determine who is a child, websites and apps will have to authenticate the age of ALL consumers before they can use the service. No one wants this."
Democrat lawmakers want the FTC to investigate Apple and Google's online ad trackers, which they say amount to unfair and deceptive business practices and pose a privacy and security risk to people using the tech giants' mobile devices.
US Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) and House Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA) requested on Friday that the watchdog launch a probe into Apple and Google, hours before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for individual states to ban access to abortions.
In the days leading up to the court's action, some of these same lawmakers had also introduced data privacy bills, including a proposal that would make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information of individuals' medical treatment.
A California state website exposed the personal details of anyone who applied for concealed-carry weapons (CCW) permits between 2011 and 2021.
According to the California Department of Justice, the blunder happened earlier this week when the US state's Firearms Dashboard Portal was overhauled.
In addition to that portal, data was exposed on several other online dashboards provided the state, including: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards.
Brave Software, maker of a privacy-oriented browser, on Wednesday said its surging search service has exited beta testing while its Goggles search personalization system has entered beta testing.
Brave Search, which debuted a year ago, has received 2.5 billion search queries since then, apparently, and based on current monthly totals is expected to handle twice as many over the next year. The search service is available in the Brave browser and in other browsers by visiting search.brave.com.
"Since launching one year ago, Brave Search has prioritized independence and innovation in order to give users the privacy they deserve," wrote Josep Pujol, chief of search at Brave. "The web is changing, and our incredible growth shows that there is demand for a new player that puts users first."
Brave CEO Brendan Eich took aim at rival DuckDuckGo on Wednesday by challenging the web search engine's efforts to brush off revelations that its Android, iOS, and macOS browsers gave, to a degree, Microsoft Bing and LinkedIn trackers a pass versus other trackers.
Eich drew attention to one of DuckDuckGo's defenses for exempting Microsoft's Bing and LinkedIn domains, a condition of its search contract with Microsoft: that its browsers blocked third-party cookies anyway.
"For non-search tracker blocking (e.g. in our browser), we block most third-party trackers," explained DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg last month. "Unfortunately our Microsoft search syndication agreement prevents us from doing more to Microsoft-owned properties. However, we have been continually pushing and expect to be doing more soon."
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022
