back to article EU lawmakers argue against signing US data-transfer pact

Lawmakers in the European Parliament have urged the European Commission not to issue the "adequacy decision" needed for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF) to officially become the pipeline for data to freely flow from the EU to the States. It almost goes without saying that the current operation of the technology sector in …

  1. Mike 137 Silver badge

    A harsh reality

    Neither standard contractual clauses nor an adequacy decision can actually prevent abuses of personal data by organisations, and adequacy decisions (being a blanket assumptions at national level) exacerbate the problem by completely disregarding the behaviours of individual organisations.

    Given the general very low standard of enforcement and the financial clout of many infracting organisations, we have an intractable problem in protecting the rights of data subjects. The only solution is a much more effective approach to enforcement -- one that is proactive rather than solely reactive and that auditably enforces change of behaviour rather than merely imposing financial penalties that, for most organisations, constitute little more than a cost of doing business.

    My investigations of non-compliance since the GDPR came into force strongly suggest a very high incidence of intentional non-compliance with the intent of the legislation, partially masked by steering close to the minimal letter of the law and reliant on crafted lack of transparency that prevents data subjects challenging malpractice. This is assisted (at least in the UK) by an obvious unwillingness on the part of the regulator to pursue individual complaints.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A harsh reality

      > This is assisted (at least in the UK) by an obvious unwillingness on the part of the regulator to pursue individual complaints. <

      Been there, done that.

      Two cases raised with ICO where the eventual Outcomes delivered stated that neither org had complied with Data Protection law but the ICO was not taking any (real) action, just giving "recommendations".

      In one case the Data Controller requested that their Data Processor delete my personal data and the Data Processor refused. As a result the case officer found the Data Controller had broken data protection law (DC is required to engage DP via a contract that enforces that DP follows DC's instructions) but would take no action.

      The case officer also took no action against the Data Processor regarding this matter - my personal data still remains stored by the Data Processor more than 2 1/2 years later.

      The ICO also did not investigate multiple potential criminal (data protection) offences committed by both orgs (and a 3rd party Data Processor).

  2. Potemkine! Silver badge

    May the EU politicians sign this....

    ... then expect Schrems III coming soon.

    1. b0llchit Silver badge

      Re: May the EU politicians sign this....

      ...and the politicians again being told by the EUCJ that they failed the mark.

      1. OhForF' Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: May the EU politicians sign this....

        The European Court of Justice issued the Schrems II judgement on16 July 2020 invalidating the "privacy shield".

        So three years later the EU overlords might manage to install a replacement that in its current form is more than likely to be struck down again (probably somewhere in 2026).

        After Schrems I and II is is hard to believe they made a real effort to protect our privacy and install procedures that ensure data sent to the US is protected as GDPR mandates.

        You don't have to be a cynic to claim the EU commissioner and others involved in this new regulation just want to find a way to allow business as usual and ignore the safeguards of the GDPR for as long as possible.

        Icon for the EU commission ->

        1. Mike 137 Silver badge

          Re: May the EU politicians sign this....

          From the Adequacy Decision in respect of the UK (European Commission document C(2021) 4800 final, dated , 28.6.2021:

          2.5.4 Transparency

          (49) Data subjects should be informed of the main features of the processing of their personal data.

          (50) This is ensured by Articles 13 and 14 of the UK GDPR, which, in addition to a general principle of transparency, provide rules on the information to be provided to the data subject [...]

          In fact, this is incorrect on two grounds:

          [1] The Regulation requires that all relevant processing be clearly identified and each purpose be clearly associated with a specific and unique lawful basis. This is to ensure that data subjects are in no doubt about exercising their Chapter III and Chapter VIII rights;

          [2- Articles 13 and 14 do not actually ensure the necessary specificity and clarity as they merely list the information to be provided. It is possible (and indeed widespread) to present the information in a manner that does not allow data subjects to identify the rights they can exercise in respect of specific processing to which they may have an objection.

          If the European Commission can't (or choose not to) recognise the true import of the legislation, what hope is there that any organisation will take the trouble to abide by it, particularly as it imposes constraints on potentially profitable data processing.

  3. nematoad Silver badge
    Happy

    Thank you.

    ""My feeling ... is that there would be scepticism of any US-issued edict,"

    Yes!

    How refreshing, a quote from a British source, given the respect it deserves and spelled correctly.

    I know that I keep banging on about this but the change to "International English" aka American English has really put me off the site and judging by other comments it has put off a lot of others as well.

    Plus 1, that wasn't so hard, now was it?

  4. prh99

    Just quit playing games, the U.S isn't going to change it's laws for the GDPR. Just say no data transfers and take the inevitable retaliation.

    1. VoiceOfTruth

      Do as you are told, slaves

      The USA is at fault here, but can't see the wood for the trees. How much better Europe would be if we didn't take orders from our greatest competitor.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Do as you are told, slaves

        @VoiceOfTruth

        "The USA is at fault here"

        Why? Disregard if you agree or disagree with US laws on data, it is their law on data for the US and has been how they have worked for however long. They are happy with it and that is their law of their country.

        The EU decide they want more regulation and legalities. Again disregard if you agree or disagree with such regulation or legalities. The problem is the EU want to use the US products and services but dont like the US laws. Its up to the EU to decide what it is willing to accept, but knowing it is the EU that needs something from the US.

        This could be any countries about almost any product/service and the same applies.

        1. VoiceOfTruth

          Re: Do as you are told, slaves

          You are a personification of "cannot see the wood for the trees".

          Don't confuse "regulation and legalities" for "privacy". No, the problem is the USA wants EU customers but does not want to abide by EU laws. Fine them $1billion a day, each offending company until they comply.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Do as you are told, slaves

            @VoiceOfTruth

            "No, the problem is the USA wants EU customers but does not want to abide by EU laws. Fine them $1billion a day, each offending company until they comply."

            Do they? Not saying the US doesnt want the customers but if the US was so desperate to sell to the EU then this wouldnt be a repeated problem. That the EU needs US services is the problem the EU struggles to reconcile with what it feels is right about privacy.

            "Fine them $1billion a day, each offending company until they comply."

            And watch as the EU crashes. All that technology and service people require to live or run a business suddenly vanishing. The US will probably notice it as something minor.

            1. VoiceOfTruth

              Re: Do as you are told, slaves

              -> The US will probably notice it as something minor.

              A clue from the clue bag: the EU's economy is bigger than the USA's. If American companies want to lose that, fine.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Do as you are told, slaves

                @VoiceOfTruth

                "A clue from the clue bag: the EU's economy is bigger than the USA's. If American companies want to lose that, fine."

                Is it? I thought the EU was in third after the US and China. And the EU is a falling portion of the worlds wealth. But either way if the EU want to make tighter rules they cant assume others will want to change their rules to match. Why does this upset you so?

              2. Justthefacts Silver badge

                Re: Do as you are told, slaves

                A clue from the clue bag: not only is your statistic wrong, it wouldn’t matter even if it were correct.

                You are confusing GDP with export value. Both EU and US GDP are within shouting distance of $20tn. Currency valuations easily account for 10% in either direction, so let’s leave it at that. GDP is a measure of an area’s economic value to *itself*.

                But the amount US exports to EU and vice versa is less than $0.4tn, which is 2% of that. That’s how much value the US stands to lose if it cut ties with the EU entirely. As an *market*, the EU is roughly comparable with Iowa. For perhaps a more serious understanding, realise that US-Canada trade value is rather similar to US-EU. And while the EU doesn’t make anything that the US can’t, Canada really does have raw materials that the US would struggle to get any other way (shipping issues), and is military strategic due to being on the same landmass. Canada, on its own, is far more consequential to the US than the whole of the EU.

                There’s just a huge gulf between “your value to yourself” and “your value to others”.

          2. gandalfcn Silver badge

            Re: Do as you are told, slaves

            "You are a personification of "cannot see the wood for the trees"." And deliberately so. Very, very obvious, it is its raison d'être.

        2. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: Do as you are told, slaves

          "They are happy with it and that is their law of their country."

          Downvote because more and more states are starting to take privacy seriously, so no, they aren't happy with it. But given the history of the US, it's going to be a long road...

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Do as you are told, slaves

            @heyrick

            "Downvote because more and more states are starting to take privacy seriously"

            This is a big difference between the US and EU (that some in the US fear is closing) that the US is made of states. So if some states want to do things differently they can, and the strength is in the difference. The EU as command from the top doesnt much care for such differences and so its members are to comply with a stricter structure. That some states are doing different is a good thing. Experimentation finds the more optimal solution.

            "so no, they aren't happy with it."

            you need a sub note of *in some states

        3. stiine Silver badge

          Re: Do as you are told, slaves

          No, we are not fucking "happy with it", but we don't yet have enough F-15's to make the necessary changes.

          1. JohnMurray

            Re: Do as you are told, slaves

            Blow up a few more oil/gas pipelines?

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Do as you are told, slaves

          The EU laws have the same value for the USA as the US laws have value for the rest of the world: none.

          But if the USA want other countries to enforce their edicts outside their USA (e.g.: embargo on Cuba), then they have to help other countries enforce their own laws against US corporations.

        5. gandalfcn Silver badge

          Re: Do as you are told, slaves

          \Well well, if it isn't @codejunky spouting bovine ordure as usual.

      2. prh99

        Re: Do as you are told, slaves

        Maybe, but Europe passed the law and at least a part of it continues negotiating these agreements knowing they aren't going to hold up to their own law. There is no political will to over haul the laws in the U.S, and expecting the U.S to change it laws cause of the GDPR is wishful thinking. It probably doesn't help tech companies aren't exactly loved in Washington, so they probably don't care if they get fined or get left out of some EU cloud contracts.

    2. jmch Silver badge

      Just like being forcibly cut off from cheap Russian gas was an initial shock but also a spur to achieve energy independence, I see cutting off cheap American data services as a long-term win. BUT it has to be gone about the right way.

      Instead of trying to build the EU equivalent of Amazon or Google, which would just create the same problems inherent in monolithic monopolists, promote software/server infrastructure that operates as multiple interoperable peer-to-peers, in the same way that the internet hardware and networking. For example cloud architecture standard that allow a company to run their business on identical software containers provided by multiple independent providers, and that can be dynamically shifted from one provider to another. I'm talking about having a Mastodon instead of a Twitter in all areas of cloud services, social networks, streaming media etc.

      Incidentally regarding my initial comparison, I believe the US were in favour of EU energy independence from Russia* so that the EU could become energy-dependent on the US or its vassal gulf states. The EU ramping up investment in both renewables and nuclear is much better for the EU.

      *In this light, attributing the bombing of NordStream to the US makes sense - neither the EU nor Russia had anything to gain from blowing this up, as they both could close taps at their end whenever they wanted to interrupt flow non-permanently while only the US had interest in this being permanent.

      1. VoiceOfTruth

        -> I believe the US were in favour of EU energy independence from Russia* so that the EU could become energy-dependent on the US or its vassal gulf states.

        You are 100% correct. Being dependent is OK as long as it is on the USA. It's like the Chinese "debt trap", while ignoring the IMF debt trap elephant in the room.

        1. xtam667

          The IMF is the lender of last resort. Countries go there when nobody else wants to give them a penny anymore, mostly because they screwed up their public finances through incompetence and graft. The IMF lends at low rates but in exchange you need to fix stuff. Basically, be more competent, steal less, and act with some responsibility. It is all very transparent but politicians do not like it because it means they may get the boot at the next election.

          The Chinese loans, those are very different.

      2. codejunky Silver badge

        @jmch

        "I believe the US were in favour of EU energy independence from Russia* so that the EU could become energy-dependent on the US or its vassal gulf states."

        That is possible but I would like to point out the unpopular opinion that Trump was against it, made the case that Europe was too dependent on a hostile and was laughed at. There was a bit less laughing when he said NATO countries should contribute their part or not expect the US to do it for them.

      3. Peter2 Silver badge

        *In this light, attributing the bombing of NordStream to the US makes sense - neither the EU nor Russia had anything to gain from blowing this up, as they both could close taps at their end whenever they wanted to interrupt flow non-permanently while only the US had interest in this being permanent.

        Are we sure about only the US having an interest in this being permanent?

        States to the east of the EU such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Ukraine who Germany had evidenced a clear willingness at the start of last year to sacrifice to a genocidal maniac in exchange for cheaper energy bills appear to have an obvious motive for blowing that pipeline to bits; Germany would be forced to rapidly end it's energy dependence on Russia and thereby Russia's leverage on Germany and thus the EU would be rapidly eliminated thereby improving their national security.

        The US stand to make lots of money at it, but they are far from being the only nation that stands to gain.

        Russia is also a possible candidate; as the new nordstream pipeline that Germany has said that they won't open was left intact and Russia offered to supply gas through it again (in increased quantities) after the other pipelines had suffered it's "horrible accident".

        So it's really quite difficult to rule anybody out really, other than it almost certainly wasn't the Germans.

    3. Justthefacts Silver badge

      Retaliation is wrong view

      Anyone who runs a business, will be very familiar with the following scenarios: “Customer” comes in, and say that they’d love to buy your product, but you’ve got your pricing all wrong. Just halve the price and they will buy. You refuse, and they storm off in a huff, saying that you are so stupid and you’ve just lost a good customer. Or, “Customer” comes in and says they like your stuff, but could you just make this other thing which is quite similar to this other company’s product. They explain to you carefully that this is what “the market” wants, so if you make it for them, at your off-the-shelf price rather than custom job, they are actually doing *you* a favour by helping you with product development. When you say “no, if you want their product at their price, you should go to them not me”, they get upset, and say you’ve just lost a good customer.

      What these scenarios have in common, is that those “Customers” are not actually *your* customers. They are someone else’s customers. To you, they are time-sinks. Your job as a business owner is to get rid of that time-sink with minimum fuss and impact to your main business. You can actually lose your entire business focusing on those time-sinks.

      In this case, from the POV of rest-of-world-outside-EU, EU is *not a customer*. They have a set of rules designed to favour internal EU companies. If as an external supplier, you should be so lucky/determined/hardworking to actually comply to all those rules such that you win that revenue….it would not help you in the slightest. A new rule would be written to favour internals, etc, etc. You are investing to win a market, that you can never win even medium term. Don’t. Do. This.

      So, US companies just stop dealing with EU companies. It’s not retaliation, it’s minimising the time-sink. It’s already happened. Twenty years ago, the EU sold the equivalent of Florida GDP to the USA. Now it’s Iowa. By 2040, it will be worth one Detroit to them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Retaliation is wrong view

        In actual facts, imports/exports between the US and the EU keep growing.

        https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=USA-EU_-_international_trade_in_goods_statistics

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Retaliation is wrong view

          All of everything grows. GDP grew by 55% over that time. First off, it’s not “total trade” that US cares about, it’s US Exports. That already gives a less rosy picture to the EU. Let’s take a wider view, from a more impartial source than what the EU claims on its own website, 25yr chart.

          https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports-to-european-union

          Exports grew strongly from 2003-2008, followed by a 2yr dip during GFC. Removing that dip, exports from US to EU hard-flatlined from 2008-2018, a whole decade during which GDP grew 50%. There was then a single year 2019 of higher exports, which might or might not be statistical fluctuation, anybodys guess, then a massive Covid crash. 2022 US to EU exports are dominated by replacing Russian gas with US LNG (about $60bn annual out of $350bn). If you subtract those, the 2022 exports are barely higher than 2008 plateau start. That’s….appalling.

          And, if you want to punish the US by refusing to buy their LNG….go ahead. Go right ahead.

      2. Rol

        Re: Retaliation is wrong view

        "Come on in and welcome to Hell. My name is Beelzebub and I'll be your host for the rest of eternity."

        ?

        "Yes, I'm sure you have lots of questions, but we ripped your vocal chords out, as this is your hell, not mine, and there's no fucking way I'm spending eternity listening to you lot whining away"

        ??

        "Yes, it is unfair, but you didn't invent Hell, we did, so you have to play by our rules or create your own"

        ???

        "Yes, I know, those who tried to invent their own Hell got bought out by our management team, or just had enough bits of them hacked off and fed to dogs to make it impossible"

        ????

        "Yes, well, that's how capitalism works"

        ?????

        "Sorry did I say capitalism, I meant Hell."

        ??????

        "Yes, they are one and the same, but we prefer the more precise term Hell, as capitalism is owned by America and so it can mean anything they want it to mean"

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Just say no data transfers and take the inevitable retaliation.

      Easy to say, but that retaliation is likely to take the form of millions of European Facebook & Google "customers" screaming that the crappy EU is blocking them from having access to their toys.

      1. prh99

        It really depends on what saying no data transfers really means, and who's in power when the decision is made. If it means Google and Facebook can't operate in the EU and you have someone like Trump, it's probably going be more akin to a scorched earth approach with high tariffs on French wine and threatening NATO etc etc and all the tit for tat that goes with it.

    5. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      There are at least SOME of us in the USA that would like to see GDPR-like privacy protections here also. Me, for one.

      End to end encryption may or may not help in the mean time.

      [BUT... if you need to get something done that involves an 'executive order', just hire HUNTER BIDEN and pay him a RIDICULOUS AMOUNT, making sure to get an extra percent in there for "The Big Guy"]

  5. alain williams Silver badge

    Is the UK going down the same path ?

    Were told that one of the Brexit bonuses was to get rid of 'pesky' EU legislation such as the GDPR.

    I just hope that the mob in Parliament keep 100% alignment with the GDPR and prevent us all a huge headache.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Is the UK going down the same path ?

      @alain williams

      "Were told that one of the Brexit bonuses was to get rid of 'pesky' EU legislation such as the GDPR.

      I just hope that the mob in Parliament keep 100% alignment with the GDPR and prevent us all a huge headache."

      If the bonus was to leave GDPR then why would we wish to align to it?

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Because the "bonus" was a lie, and you don't have a choice.

        Unless, of course, you're OK with saying goodbye to 45% of your commerce budget.

        Your figures, not mine.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          @Pascal Monett

          "Because the "bonus" was a lie, and you don't have a choice."

          According to this article GDPR is incompatible with a country that supplies necessary technological support to the EU. So it seems to be saying anyway.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Pascal Monett

            It is compatible, but the fact that any US county level sheriff can access your personal data for any reason without getting first a warrant (they just have to ask the FBI) is a thing that raises some concern with normal people.

        2. Justthefacts Silver badge

          Ridiculous statistics

          You know perfectly well that 45% export to EU is largely synthetic artefact, everyone knows that.

          The nominal EU figures include: exporting more to Ireland than *all of the EU27 put together* other than France and Germany. That’s basically just the milkman delivering from Hanrattys dairy in Northern Ireland to Mrs O’Dell six miles across the border. It’s not “exports”

          Both Belgium and Netherlands “exports” are as large as Germany….and mostly represent goods that are onward-shipped to *non-EU* via Rotterdam. For the simple reason that goods shipped via Rotterdam onward to EU countries, are counted at their EU destination because that’s tax optimal. Uk *might* be exporting £2000 of goods for every man woman and child in Belgium and Netherlands but….. I don’t think so.

          So, France and Germany then. 20% of our total “exports” to France is a single company, Airbus. And that’s artefact of their supply-chain being insanely cross-strapped across borders for tax subsidy purposes. Airbus Bristol make the airplane wing. Actually they make the Left wing. Not both wings, just the Left wing. Import $2M components to Bristol, add $100k of labour, ship back $2.1M wing. Bingo, there’s $4M of import/export reported on $100k of actual value. Ridiculous. About 60-70% of all U.K. exports to France and Germany accrue from just six companies playing this accounting game, who between them employ less than 10000 people in the U.K.

          Oh, and by the way, another 30% of the “exports” from U.K. to France is actually global imported Liquid Natural Gas, which lands at the U.K. because we happen to have the gasification plant and then the gas literally flows direct through pipeline to France as we have almost zero gas storage facilities. Is France threatening to refuse to accept global (non U.K.) LNG from bulk carriers, needed to replace the loss from Russia, just because it lands in U.K. first? No? You do surprise me.

          Final elephant in the room: financial services. As we discovered in 2008, these aren’t really export services at all. It’s really all the U.K. taxpayer subsidising the large banks of all nationalities by providing them default guarantees via the FCS. The U.K. financial sector sells pound coins for 99p, by taking 2p from the government, and then dances about how big their market volume is. It’s actually taxpayer fraud, not export. I for one would cry no tears if that whole export sector died in a bonfire. The few billion taxes annually they do pay, won’t repay the $800bn that it cost us to bail them out, until different constellations are in the sky.

          1. Anomalous Cowturd
            FAIL

            Re: Ridiculous statistics

            There is no gas pipeline between the UK and France. There is one between the UK and Belgium.

  6. Peter2 Silver badge

    Lawmakers in the European Parliament have urged the European Commission not to issue the "adequacy decision" needed for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF) to officially become the pipeline for data to freely flow from the EU to the States.

    It almost goes without saying that the current operation of the technology sector in Europe would not work without US tech companies' services – so data transfers to these American corporations cannot practicably be avoided.

    Are we sure about this?

    The legal problem is that if you transfer data to America by putting it on cloud offerings from American vendors your not able to discharge your legal duty to protect it, because it's not stored in national legal or even regional (EU) legal jurisdiction.

    This logic leads the author to the conclusion that "data transfers to these American corporations cannot practicably be avoided".

    I would have to point out that "cannot practicably be avoided"; simply means "you can't legally use American clouds". If one were running an on prem server using software from an American corporation then since the data wouldn't be leaving the jurisdiction of your country it would be perfectly legal.

    It simply wouldn't be good news for American cloud vendors, although I can't see Microsoft would be caring much since they win either way.

    1. Justthefacts Silver badge

      Maybe?

      You’ve certainly explained what’s in it for *you*. You haven’t explained why those large US corporate software providers should actually want to sell you that software though?

      The business model *you* propose *might* work for them. It certainly has been profitable in the past. But at the moment, they prefer the Cloud business model, apparently that’s better for them. Why should they do what you tell them?

      I’ve said this before: 55% of Microsoft revenue is in the US. About 12% is in EMEA region, and only around 8% in the EU itself. Just how much say do you think the Microsoft EMEA director gets in board meetings when it comes to global Microsoft strategy of 365 vs locally installed Windows on client PCs? They wouldn’t just throw away 8% of their revenue without a good reason. On the other hand, if a global strategy change could lift their revenue in other ways, 8% is not a particularly big ask in the grand scheme of things.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Maybe?

        You’ve certainly explained what’s in it for *you*. You haven’t explained why those large US corporate software providers should actually want to sell you that software though?

        I did? Where?

        I didn't actually didn't explain what's in it for me. I stated the obvious; if laws say that we cannot legally transfer data to the US cloud providers then it would simply force people to use on prem solutions, the largest provider of whom is Microsoft.

        However in terms of why should Microsoft be willing to sell the existing server software which is currently on unrestricted sale to customers wanting to buy it, then i'd suggest that ~70% of people leaving Microsoft on prem servers for the cloud have largely gone to Amazon, who are Microsoft's competitor. Microsoft has on prem solutions on sale right now. Amazon does not have on prem solutions on sale right now.

        Therefore, if people are forced back to on prem solutions then who gains; Amazon, or Microsoft?

        1. Justthefacts Silver badge

          Re: Maybe?

          I’m just saying that the real issue is the overall cost vs support burden of cloud vs on-prem. And that tradeoff, including strategic balance Microsoft/AWS, is going to be independent of country. If Cloud wins the argument in the US, then Microsoft will go cloud-only too and you will lose the on-prem option everywhere. If it doesn’t, it won’t. EU “data sovereignty” just isn’t going to be a factor here. US-based companies have their own concerns about handing their data over to a cloud they don’t control. It’s just a case if the payback is sufficient, everyone will do it.

    2. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

      Oh Microsoft would care. They much prefer the recurring cost of using cloud services to a one-off on-premises payment. Especially as that means regular price hikes, higher profit, unlimited rice pudding, etc etc

      1. Justthefacts Silver badge

        Yes

        What’s your point? You’re assuming you can *force* Microsoft to the lower price one-off model. But why should they accept that price? If they can transition from $100 ARPU worldwide on-prem, to $120 ARPU worldwide Cloud, while losing just 8% of their customer base (which is what EU represents to them), why wouldn’t they do that? Why would the 8% refuseniks be allowed to write their own contract? I don’t see it.

        This is EU exceptionalism writ large. I personally don’t know whether the price/convenience/support burden tradeoff makes Cloud a slam-dunk “good option” for companies or not. If Microsoft can’t persuade its *global* customers of the value proposition, then it won’t happen, because customers will bargain down the price. If the price could be higher, it would already be higher. But if Microsoft *can* make the case to its customers successfully, then that’s a statement about what certain things are worth to companies, to allow them to operate efficiently. Why would the core processes of operating a company be so different whether based in Detroit vs Paris vs London vs Karachi vs Dubai? Makes no sense to me. If Cloud contracts can prove their value proposition, they will be rolled out everywhere, and that’s the end of it. If you don’t want to buy, fair enough, but you won’t be offered an on-prem alternative.

        The first rule of business *if you can’t identify customers walking away on price, then raise your prices*. You certainly can offer functionally the same product in the market at two prices, it’s called market segmentation. But it’s on a difference of *ability* to pay. If you just allow the shouty customers with *more* money to transition to a contract they prefer, you never get anyone to pay the actual market price. That’s stooopid.

        1. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

          Re: Yes

          Why would the core processes of operating a company be so different whether based in Detroit vs Paris vs London vs Karachi vs Dubai? Makes no sense to me.

          Because there are laws and regulations to follow. It's part of the cost of doing business. Want to do business in Detroit? US federal law and Michigan state laws apply. Paris? French law. London? UK law. Want to do business in Karachi or Dubai? Well not just the laws, you probably best learn Hindi and Arabic, too.

          This is why Micros~1 and others have lots of regional subsidiaries rather than just one company operating globally, because it's easier to have people on the ground who understand those laws, rather than getting fined. It's especially useful to understand them if you're trying to sell them products to run their businesses, which have to abide by those laws.

          And no they're got going to lose 8% of their customer base - that would cost the shareholders money. If you're a private company that's a decision you're allowed to make, but as a publicly traded one you have responsibilities to your shareholders. Although there's no specific law saying a company has to maximise its profits, losing 8% of your customer base simply because you don't want to abide by local laws is probably a great way to get yourself sued into oblivion. (The phrase "corporate malfeasance" springs to mind.)

      2. Peter2 Silver badge

        Oh Microsoft would care. They much prefer the recurring cost of using cloud services to a one-off on-premises payment. Especially as that means regular price hikes, higher profit, unlimited rice pudding, etc etc

        And so what exactly would stop Microsoft from changing the basis of licensing from buying indefinite rights to use the product server Windows server 20xx [supplied with 5 years of updates] and then a pile of Client Access Licenses for it?

        If at the start of the next upgrade cycle they "simplified their licensing requirements" by dropping the purchase price for Windows server and CALS and instead charged X per user per month then they'd still be winning.

        1. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

          Nothing would, naturally. But policing that is way harder than policing cloud pricing - with cloud they're a captive audience already, and that's why cloud is so popular: you get to change your licence fees whenever you like and you've already slammed the door to stop people leaving.

  7. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "interpreted solely in the light of US law and legal traditions"

    Aka : the NSA does whatever the fuck it wants and if you don't like it, fuck you.

    Personally, I am still wondering why we (the EU) hasn't just shut down the data pipe until this is resolved properly, aka following EU rules.

    Let's not get confused : that data is making US companies salivate. The junkies need their fix. You tell them what you agree to give and they'll fold, it just takes a bit of time. The rest is all a storm in a teacup. Let the noisy ones bloviate, you can wait them out. They cannot stand to wait.

    Advantage : EU.

    1. Justthefacts Silver badge

      Re: "interpreted solely in the light of US law and legal traditions"

      Why do you think EU customer data is uniquely tasty? I don’t buy any customer data, wouldn’t make sense for my business. But if I did, I can’t think of any reason to pay a premium for EU data, and lots of reasons it would be worth relatively low amount.

      Let’s take some actual data: USA cost-per-click for e-commerce search, averages over a dollar at the moment. For B2B it’s over $3. That’s noticeably more than what it is in the U.K…..But in Germany e-commerce CPC is down at 60 cents, whereas Poland consumer attention is priced more like 25 cents. I’m struggling to see this “unique taste”, unless it’s the sense in which the tour rep always try to persuade you to try the “local delicacy”.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    not good

    EU privacy laws are needed here. My countries government (US) and business are to corrupt to favor dirty business.

    Privacy laws need elevated, not brought down to the lowest standard.

  9. Scary7821
    Big Brother

    The Illuminati of the data protection authorities

    Could someone please enlighten me as to the following?

    EU SIGINT is out of the scope of the GDPR as far as national security is concerned. So as long as the spies of a given country snoop upon all the dearest citizens of the EU, GDPR is not applicable, and the only way EU citizens can protect themselves is by way of invoking the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    However, neither Luxembourg, nor the European Court of Human Rights is Strassbourg dares to limit what one may understand under "national security" in the EU. That's not something that bothers the EU Parliament or LIBE, not even in the slightest way, and I'm not sure they could come to a common understanding in this matter.

    However, as long as that data goes across the Atlantic ... BANG, it becomes a huge problem that the POTUS can widen what exactly SIGINT activity or bulk collection will mean or that what rights we have against national security agencies across the Pond.

    If politicians in the EU want to take on the responsibility of not making US services accessible for any reasons, they should do it openly. Not via the debate of this adequacy decision, or sham filings made by Austrian university students and bored judges not interested in providing any solutions to anyone affected.

    The EDPB and the national DPAs readily push this responsbility further to the EU companies trying to conciliate users' current wishes with currently impossible legal options.

    1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: The Illuminati of the data protection authorities

      It is either Strasbourg or Straßburg, don't mix if you don't want EU spooks go after you

  10. Eclectic Man Silver badge
    Coat

    DPF

    'Data Pipeline Framework' ?

    I'll get my coat, it's the one with the USB drives in the pocket.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    An important question to ask

    Why are Americans not entitled to the protection we lawfully enjoy in the EU?

    That's where the real problem lies - the legal frameworks are just too different to align as in the US they presently seem to favour the data thieves. Sure, there are some pockets of exceptions at State level, but at Federal level legislation is NOT in favour of the end user, and frankly, I don't see that change anytime soon.

    Ergo the serial failures to get an agreement ready as it never seeks to align the underlying legal issues, it merely sticks a trade-protecting plaster over the wound, and that plaster isn't terribly robust.

  12. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
    Trollface

    put a tax on all US companies operations

    like 50% of turn-over, or higher, up to the moment the US pass a federal law similar to GDPR.

    It would nicely fill EU's coffers for the next centuries or so...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like