EU takes another step towards US data-sharing agreement

The EU has issued a draft decision agreeing that measures taken by the United States ensure sufficient protection for personal data to be transferred from the region to US companies. The signature of a US Executive Order by President Biden on 7 October 2022, along with the regulations issued by US Attorney General Merrick …

[elsergiovolador]

Impotence

EU citizens have been promised redress if their personal data is handled in violation of the Framework, including a free-of-charge independent dispute resolution mechanisms and an arbitration panel.

I chuckled. Is it going to be the same "redress" mechanism as with GDPR?

access to personal data from Europe by US intelligence agencies would be limited to what is necessary and proportionate to protect national security.

Which means they will be able to access anything they want as they please...

EU bureaucrats love this kind of nonsense. Endless meetings, doughnuts, hotels, dinners, banquets, back and forths and of course the toughest part, pretending they actually care about any of these issues :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Impotence

Those alleged doughnuts have paid themselves many times over with the fines already enacted.

You can certainly argue things are not going far or fast enough. It's still much better than in the US or what the UK is planning.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Impotence

Yes, maybe the doughnuts paid for themselves, but given that fines are being issued isn't a good indication that the law is working, no?

I mean, businesses treat those fines as just another cost of doing business.

If the EU just wanted to raise more money, why faff around, just raise the tax.

[Glen 1]

Re: Impotence

I was under the impression that the EU as an organisation doesn't get any tax money directly.

Its funded by the member states, who use their citizens' tax money - which is a point of negotiation.

As to your other point, perhaps the fines should be bigger.

[Justthefacts]

Re: Impotence

No, Commission now has rather a lot of own revenue tax-raising powers. From all customs duties on imports from outside the bloc, to revenue from selling carbon credits, a levy on plastics, and some of the VAT income (0.3%). By formal tax-raising power, the Commission is the fifth-largest country in the EU.

But the bigger problem is that people look at the income side only, and assuming spending must match. It doesn’t. The EU have run up multi-trillion debts in several non-obvious mechanisms, none of which have any prospect or expectation to be covered within national subscriptions. There’s lot of debate about QE and COVID solidarity bonds, but the main debts and subsidies are dozens of times larger and pre-date COVID. They are hidden as “loans” which have really been grants, where the issuing institution has a “net zero” financial position including a theoretical but not practical claim on the underlying asset.

To take a random example, Commission currently owns 60% of the local tax income of Communidad de Madrid, until 2052, which is paying down loan on money the Commission already gave and has been spent. How is Madrid is supposed to live on 40% of its normal tax base for a generation? Oh well that’s easy. All they have to do is get out another loan to pay their current operating expenses, pledging another 20% of their tax income to secure it. That’s how they got into this position - three tranches of 20% so far. Perhaps you can see the problem, although Madrid can’t. So you can see why I’m sceptical of saying EU Commission doesn’t have tax-raising powers.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Impotence

We hear a great deal about the fines that have been levied; but how much of them has actually been paid?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Campaigners say it's unlikely to pass a test in the courts, though"

And to make sure that happens, I have already donated to NOYB:

https://noyb.eu/en/support-us

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Campaigners say it's unlikely to pass a test in the courts, though"

By this point, I'm starting to feel tempted to send the invoice to the Commissioners. It's the *third* time they collude with the US to hand them over our data.

If US companies want our data, it's up to them to get *their* government to change *their* laws, not for the EC to try to bend ours.

[naive]

Re: "Campaigners say it's unlikely to pass a test in the courts, though"

It is not like anybody cares. The EU politbureau doesn't have issues creating laws that do not hold up, by the time they are struck down in a court we are many years down the line where they can do as they please.

These guys do not have to answer to voters so they can happily continue to implement the WEF objective "You (the non billionaire) will own nothing but be happy".

Allowing the Big-Tech billionaires that make up the WEF to access our data in the US, where no meaningful data protection is in place (CLOUD and the patriot act), just makes things easier for them.

But we will be happy in the end.

[codejunky]

Re: "Campaigners say it's unlikely to pass a test in the courts, though"

@AC

"If US companies want our data, it's up to them to get *their* government to change *their* laws, not for the EC to try to bend ours."

In theory but this runs back into the wall of the EU being big enough to negotiate on an equal footing with the US and China etc. The EU just doesnt have the clout for that.

[nijam]

Re: "Campaigners say it's unlikely to pass a test in the courts, though"

> ...The EU just doesnt have the clout for that.

But it did before the UK left. Just coincidence, I'm sure, that Brexit benefitted every country in the world except EU members and the UK.

[codejunky]

Re: "Campaigners say it's unlikely to pass a test in the courts, though"

@nijam

"But it did before the UK left. Just coincidence, I'm sure, that Brexit benefitted every country in the world except EU members and the UK."

Really? Are you saying the ENTIRE EU had clout when the UK was part of it and now that the little England and insignificant UK has left? But now the WHOLE WORLD is better off because the UK left the EU!

I think you might have some remainers getting their knickers in a twist over that one!

[icesenshi]

Re: "Campaigners say it's unlikely to pass a test in the courts, though"

Schrems III

[Dr Fidget]

Who's national security?

"access to personal data from Europe by US intelligence agencies would be limited to what is necessary and proportionate to protect national security." - as defined by?

[Johnb89]

Arbitration panel

Back at Shrems1 a key failure was that, while there was an arbitration panel, there was no way for an EU citizen to KNOW that their data had been accessed, in order to take it to arbitration. That is, if one found that one's data had been accessed improperly one could take it to arbitration, but no entity was obliged to tell an EU citizen that anything had been accessed.

Does anyone know if that flaw/loophole has been fixed here? It would be a small step, though only a small step.