Four years after Europe sorted this, America is still going around in circles on data privacy in stuffy hearings

The legislative dance around a federal data privacy law continued on Wednesday at a Congressional hearing where a range of former FTC officials and California’s Attorney General were quizzed on how to make it a reality. Even the title of the Senate's commerce committee hearing indicated how many times around the roundabout …

[Snake]

The same old answer

to the problem still remains: violate the privacy of the powerful, rich, and famous. You'll get results you wanted in a real hurry.

[Drew Scriver]

Re: The same old answer

Maybe...

But isn't it just as likely that such a new law would apply only the "the powerful, the rich, and famous"?

[eldakka]

Should have hammered it home

Becerra was good enough not to point out that the law was only passed because Californian voters were going to force through their own data privacy legislation through the ballot box regardless, having grown fed up of constant stasis in Sacramento thanks to the lobbying power of tech giants.

Surely this point should have been hammered home? That despite what the big corporations, the lobbyists, the politicians want, the people want - nay, demand - some sort of privacy laws. I can't imagine a better indicator of the publics opinion on something than holding a statewide referendum on a specific law and the people directly voting for (at least theoretically, as the ballot inititiave was pulled so there was no actual vote on it, but it was pulled because the legislature was convinced it would have passed) it.

[JohnMurray]

Re: Should have hammered it home

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"..............................is so overrated !

Replace "We the people" with "corporations": Sorted!

[NoKangaroosInAustria]

Re: Should have hammered it home

Methinks you're forgetting that this is the US where: <sarcasm>Corporations are people too</sarcasm>

[Drew Scriver]

Re: Should have hammered it home

Sort of.

He would be in thin ice since, generally speaking, the politicians (Californians included) tend to limit "we need to do it because the people want it" to issues where the people agree with the politicians.

When "the people" are not in favor they'll ram it through anyway under the guise that it's "for the good of the people". The people only disagree because they don't understand that it's best for them...

[streaky]

Yikes.

You lost me at "Europe sorted this".

[45RPM]

Re: Yikes.

The EU may not be perfect, but it’s a bastion of civilisation and tolerance in an increasingly dangerous and uncivilised world. To rail against the EU, to want to leave the EU, merely demonstrates that one doesn’t understand the problem, and that one hasn’t even attempted to get hold of and read the actual facts (as opposed to the social media facts).

As to the flaws in the EU, we can’t fix them from outside - and, as we’re discovering, an exceptionalist mindset gets us nothing in negotiations.

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Yikes.

The poster you're responding to didn't mention the EU at all.

The GDPR is also pretty poor legislation with various issues, so I too would dispute the statement "Europe sorted this". To be fair the EU had a crack at it and it's better than nothing, however it if far from sorted.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The GDPR is also pretty poor legislation with various issues"

Yes, I think I heard Zuckerberg saying this while his company is fighting with the Irish privacy authority which is barring FB to move data to US after Privacy Shield was shot down too....

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: "The GDPR is also pretty poor legislation with various issues"

I wasn't quoting Facebook, but thinking of the various books produced at the time of its introduction that disagreed on scope of GDPR. However, the fact that a court case is taking place proves my point. I've heard comments from several DPOs at companies along the lines of "a lot of this will only be determined by judge's ruling on court cases".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "The GDPR is also pretty poor legislation with various issues"

GDPR didn't attempt to crystallize in stone a set of strict rules to follow. It set out goals to be reached to ensure privacy and safety of personal data. It was a good idea, because business and technology changes quickly and any strict rule could have become outdated too soon.

That means over time its application will depend on courts rulings. Nor is a surprise that entities like Facebook who built their business model on shredding people's privacy will try to avoid to be bound by laws - especially they believe they are powerful enough to think it - just look at what happened in California.

[streaky]

Re: Yikes.

It's not entirely clear that "Europe" didn't make matters significantly worse and we know that the GDPR was *heavily* lobbied to favour the likes of Facebook, Google et al against potential competitors, for example, not unlike what happened with the TPD.

Until the EU sorts out its lobbying problem and outlaws things that are even illegal in the US, it's never going to produce good legislation, on anything.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Yikes.

Would this 'bastion of civilisation and tolerance' be the same EU whose member state Poland has a lot of municipalities proclaiming themselves to be LGBT-free zones?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poland-lgbt-free-zones-homophobia-hate-speech-law-justice-party-a9013551.html

It will be interesting to see how the EU deals with this. I would have thought a case before the ECHR would be in order, but that is not actually part of the EU, I wonder if Poland has signed up.

[45RPM]

Re: Yikes.

It will be interesting to see how the EU deals with this. I would have thought a case before the ECHR would be in order

Exactly this. I am pro European, and I absolutely think that the UK should be in, and this is a key case that needs to be watched very closely. However, it is also an example of the right wing political parties fscking everything up for their own bizarre ends.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yikes.

Poland and Hungary are not the whole EU.... and they are walking on a dangerous path.

And after all both their leaders look a lot alike the actual US president...

[streaky]

Re: Yikes.

"we can’t fix them from outside"

There's no evidence to support the statement "the EU can be fixed from the inside" - we've been trying for decades, used carrots, sticks and outright bribery and it's just got worse every administration. The only way to fix the EU is to tear it down.

[NoKangaroosInAustria]

Re: Yikes.

Downvoted because - facts matter.

Google "eu gdpr vs us" and pick ANY of the top results. A total Investment of 3 mins skimming would have revealed the common consensus that the eu gdpr is objectively better for consumers than the current POSL the us has. There is absolutely no debate about this, no ambiguity.

The constant demonising of the EU at every turn by B***it supporters is getting rather tiresome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yikes.

They know nothing about how the EU works. They've just bern trained to boo every tome the EU is mentioned, like it's the villian in some pantomime.

[streaky]

Re: Yikes.

No the problem is we *do* know how the EU works, thanks. That's why we want far away from it.

[streaky]

Re: Yikes.

"that the eu gdpr is objectively better for consumers than the current POSL the us has"

Nice straw man argument, shame that's (clearly) not what we're talking about - quite the opposite in fact. Yikes.

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-data-protection-gdpr-general-data-protection-regulation-facebook-google/

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/1/108

Facts matter.

[DavCrav]

Where is this extra L coming from?

US privacy regulations are a POS, not a POSL.

[codejunky]

Interesting interpretation

It is an interesting comparison of how the US and EU do things which is very different and surely rests on what you want out of a collection of states/countries. The US already has a federal system which is over individual states but the states are typically left to run affairs their way which allows for variation and for each state to go its own way. The EU works a different way where it imposes its rules onto the members who are expected to follow it. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

"Since a huge number of people are online and exchanging information in an almost seamless fashion"

People worldwide already want to do this. The convenience and benefits to people has made the internet and global commerce grow at an amazing speed we should be proud of. It was achieved with the freedom to explore and attempt and people embraced it.

"it makes sense to have a single nationwide law to cover it all rather than a “patchwork of state laws”"

This being where a bureaucrat now tries to justify their existence. The problem with a single nationwide law is that instead of being minimal to stay out of the way the bureaucrats will want to over-impose their power.

"To simplify: Democrats think American citizens should have the right to their own personal data, including telling companies what they can gather and whether they can sell it; Republicans believe companies should have the data because it’s worth money and money is good."

Thats one way to look at it. Or the republicans think people have personal responsibility which comes with freedom and liberty vs the democrats who want to protect and coddle? Some people might mistake "it’s worth money and money is good" as a bad thing but it is also true. Everyones data to facebook is worth almost nothing per individual, it is only the vast number of people and the efficient processing of data that gives it much of a value.

"Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) noted that facial recognition can be bound up into the same laws"

See my comment about bureaucrats.

"Brill was also quizzed from the other side of the spectrum – Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz was worried (though not really) about the impact of a data privacy law on smaller businesses. It could be too onerous, he argued"

It makes sense. As is correct to point out, these laws really do impact smaller businesses. Thats why bigger ones like laws and regulations which make it hard for competition to start up. And of course the reason things get better is competition which we surely want more of.

"He disparaged Europe’s equivalent – GDPR – and noted that it has caused some American businesses to simply shut up shop to Europe customers in order to avoid have to deal with the complexity of the law."

Which isnt wrong. Some people in Europe are happy with that preferring the law over the US service. Facebook is already stating it may pull out of Europe due to bureaucrats thinking they know best- https://www.expunct.com/media/we-do-hope-that-facebook-carries-out-this-threat/

"she argued that not only will a company want to have the option to trade with Europe at some point, but that a stronger and clearer data privacy law across the US would be beneficial"

Completely missing the impact it will have on small business. Maybe they will want to trade with Europe, but this is going to affect domestic trade. This is why states have so much power, so they can make their choices.

[Adelio]

Re: Interesting interpretation

The thing is that as a UK Citizen the fact that each US state seems to have their own laws appears to be total madness.

Now if each state had hard boarders with a wall around each and strict border controls and visas to enter each state then that might make some sense,

But what you have is NOT that.

You walks across a state line and the rules change about almost everything, Gun laws, taxes, privacy, business. There appears to be little that does not change.

Taxaction apears to be deliberatly complicated so that no-one actually knows how much tax they need to pay. You can have a state or city or county tax that can change on a weekly basis. for a single type of product!

In the UK, sales tax (VAT) has changes probably 3 or 4 times in the last 30 years and we only have a few different rates.

Zero, childrens stuff, books/newspapers & most food,

20% for almost EVERYTHING else

5% for insurance and utilities

I may have missed something but they just do NOT change a lot, and the idea that the rates would be different for just crossing a road are madness.

[codejunky]

Re: Interesting interpretation

@Adelio

"The thing is that as a UK Citizen the fact that each US state seems to have their own laws appears to be total madness."

I am also a UK citizen. Each state is pretty much its own country. The freedom to be different in laws allows variation and competition.

"Now if each state had hard boarders with a wall around each and strict border controls and visas to enter each state then that might make some sense,"

Why? That would add restriction to people, its unnecessary. Think free movement in the EU. The idea of different places and different cultures being able to cross states unhindered. The difference is the EU trying to uniform each state while the US is grown from independence of each state.

"You walks across a state line and the rules change about almost everything, Gun laws, taxes, privacy, business. There appears to be little that does not change."

Yeah. its great isnt it. Some idiot puts a limit on opening hours for selling alcohol and people cross the border. One state may have prohibitive gun laws and one much more relaxed, and it gives people choice and freedom to choose.

"In the UK, sales tax (VAT) has changes probably 3 or 4 times in the last 30 years and we only have a few different rates."

Hot food gets one vat rate while cold does not (or something equally stupid). Then go to France and they have different tax law. Same thing. Each state is pretty much its own member country of the US.

"I may have missed something but they just do NOT change a lot, and the idea that the rates would be different for just crossing a road are madness."

Dont roam around the EU member states then. If you enter a different country you expect it to have its own rules.

[Drew Scriver]

Re: Interesting interpretation

The thing is that as a UK Citizen the fact that each US state seems to have their own laws appears to be total madness.

It's not that strange if you consider that the US are not a country; it is a union of 'countries' (or states, if you will). Much like the EU, or even Germany.

Now if each state had hard boarders with a wall around each and strict border controls and visas to enter each state then that might make some sense,

States do have borders. For instance, if you drive from Nevada to California you may be stopped at the border to check whether you are importing fruit (which is not allowed). And State Police are generally not allowed to cross the state borders - even if they are in hot pursuit. In addition, if you commit a crime across state borders it generally would become a federal issue. And you'd end up in federal prison, not a state prison.

States even have extradition agreements for suspected criminals. Each state has its own government, a court system (including a supreme court), its own constitution, its own tax system (in addition to the federal taxes), even its own version of the FBI (e.g. the Colorado Bureau of Investigation).

Taxaction apears to be deliberatly complicated so that no-one actually knows how much tax they need to pay. You can have a state or city or county tax that can change on a weekly basis. for a single type of product!

That is simply because local tax revenue is used for local expenditures. Regarding "nobody knows how much tax they need to pay", it's really not all that difficult to add approximately 10% to the sticker price. I'd much rather have that than having 20-21% invisibly included in the price. It's quite healthy for the tax rates (if you believe in lower rates, that is) if there's some level of sticker shock at the check-out. Imagine buying something for €100 and having the cashier tell you to pay €121.

Or, in the case of gasoline/petrol, buying €20 worth of fuel and being charged €60... (that last example isn't entirely valid since the taxes are in fact included in the price across the USA).

[RM Myers]

as a UK Citizen the fact that each US state seems to have their own laws

I'm not sure the states in the US have any more freedom to create their own laws than Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have. Even in areas where the states have freedom, such as contract law, you typically have a standard which most states follow, in this case the Uniform Commercial Code. For a number of other areas, there are associations of state regulators that standardize many of the laws and regulations, like the National Association of Insurance Commissioners for insurance.

Most of the large differences in laws between states tend to be in areas where there are large societal changes in opinion happening, such as marijuana laws, or new technologies causing changes, such as the internet and the effect on privacy. Over time, these differences tend to lessen as a consensus develops.

[Anonymous Coward]

"where it imposes its rules onto the members"

Not at all - there are different types of rules:

- Regulations (like GDPR): "a binding legislative act. It must be applied in its entirety across the EU."

- Directives: "a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries to devise their own laws."

Etc, see https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en

Anyway one of the EU goals is to harmonize rules among countries to make the "free circulation" easier.

"Facebook is already stating it may pull out of Europe due to bureaucrats thinking they know best"

No, Facebook is making the usual treats because it does fear it can't do any longer what it likes with European citizens data. Facebook wants to profit as it likes from people data, even those who never used and use its services. That's why California couldn't push harder....

Anyway one of the reason Safe Harbour and Privacy Shield were shot down is exactly US law can't protect people data in a way acceptable to EU.

And think, EU didn't ask FB to sell its EU operations to a EU company - just said EU data must stay in EU until the proper safeguards are in place.

[codejunky]

Re: "where it imposes its rules onto the members"

@LDS

"Anyway one of the EU goals is to harmonize rules among countries to make the "free circulation" easier."

This is what I mean. US states try to hold on to their independence while the structure is different in the EU where the top expects to apply the same over each member. That isnt to make a comment on good or bad just the different approaches.

"No, Facebook is making the usual treats because it does fear it can't do any longer what it likes with European citizens data"

Might be threats thats why it will be interesting if they do it. Will hundreds of millions of people matter or the bureaucratic will? Will the citizens get to decide or a jobsworth?

"Facebook wants to profit as it likes from people data"

A company wants to profit? Yes that is typically how business works. And the people who use it want to use it, they choose. Its their decision to use it. Even after however many public outcries of the data going to the US.

"Anyway one of the reason Safe Harbour and Privacy Shield were shot down is exactly US law can't protect people data in a way acceptable to EU."

Very true. The reason such intermediary efforts were tolerated in the interim is that the US is a big market that matters, and cutting them off would be a serious self inflicted blow on the EU. It is that balance of wanting trade and wanting to impose domestic rules internationally.

"And think, EU didn't ask FB to sell its EU operations to a EU company - just said EU data must stay in EU until the proper safeguards are in place."

That is what the EU said. For a global company that uses a low value resource such as peoples data and processes such vast quantities as to extract some value from it. And if the EU's imposition breaks that model then FB might have to pull out.

Which then leads to the problem that people are people and have their desires no matter how interfering the bureaucrats are and may use VPN etc or just kick up such a fuss that the imposition is watered down/thrown out. Freedom of choice.

[Anonymous Coward]

"US states try to hold on to their independence"

Yes, they even fought a war for that and the Confederation lost.

EU laws are not much different from US federal laws. Can states avoid to apply laws enacted by the Congress on federal matters? AFAIK federal laws do preempt state laws. Moreover US have federal crime laws and tax laws while EU still doesn't have anything alike.

They very law discussed here is to have a federal law to avoid each state has its incompatible version. That's the same reason why GDPR is a regulation and not a directive - 27 privacy laws would have just made everything more complicated.

"Will the citizens get to decide or a jobsworth?"

That's how a democracy works. People elect governments, and governments name authorities members. Which are tasked to ensure laws are respected. Are you telling me the US Supreme Court has no authority because it's not elected by any citizen? EU enacted GDPR because EU citizens want privacy. Sure, many of us had dictatorships and thereby we value privacy,

It's funny after all US people believe they can have freedom without privacy... they balk at the idea of an ID card, but are willingly to let FB & C. profile them down to inside their pants. Not all of them, it looks in California many of them wanted a strong privacy law as well - which inevitably will require some "bureaucrat" to ensure it is applied. After all, while Trump sabotaged EPA, FCC, etc.? To ensure the laws were never respected.

"A company wants to profit? Yes that is typically how business works. "

Sure. A company can make all the profits it can within the law. The problem is FB doesn't like rules and wants to enforce its own ones.

"is that the US is a big market that matters"

Is exactly the opposite. It's US internet companies that are eager to access EU citizen data - it's a big, rich market.

"It is that balance of wanting trade and wanting to impose domestic rules internationally."

Unlike US and its CLOUD Act, EU doesn't try to impose its rules internationally. GDPR applies in EU only, and yes, if your want to make business in EU you have to abide to EU rules. The same happens in US, I believe... and frankly, foreigners have many more rights in EU than in US.

"For a global company that uses a low value resource such as peoples data"

"Law value resource"? I've read estimates about 7,000 billions recently.

"And if the EU's imposition breaks that model then FB might have to pull out."

I really wish they did. But it's just a blackmail attempt in the hope some whiners will complain. Just like the Google attempts anytime copyright laws are enacted.

[EagleZ28]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

A few answers for you...

Yes, states have to follow federal law.

Yes, federal law preempts state laws... unless the state laws are even MORE strict.

(A good example is California's pollution laws being more strict than federal law. Another example

is that federal law might allow 18yo to drink/purchase alcohol, while a specific state can set the

minimum age to be higher, such as 21.)

"It's funny after all US people believe they can have freedom without privacy."

It's a bit more nuanced than that, here in the US... and there are, BROADLY, two opinions.

On the first matter... I think it's basically unanimous, that we want privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Our Constitution and courts ensure and protect that... with some failures, and within limits.

Then, when it comes to privacy from things like private corporations, there are the two basic camps,

those who want the privacy, and those who either don't care or believe the individual should have the responsibility.

For myself, just for an example...

Do I care if FB sells info that I'm a male, and wear jeans? No. Even what size/style? No.

Sells my PHONE NUMBER?

Hell yes, I care... which is why I won't give it to them.

MORE than that, those databases are eventually going to get HACKED... and obviously hackers don't obey the laws... so I try to *think* about what data I'm giving out, with the knowledge that it probably WILL get stolen, eventually, or at least MIGHT get stolen.

Americans are also accustomed to "commercialization"... we watch TV... and those TV shows are paid for by commercial advertisements... not by a yearly fee/license that we pay.

Adding even more nuance...

SOME Americans live in certain states, like New York and California, where the state exhibits more control... sort of like parents... parents who are sometimes benevolent, sometimes abusive. Those people are ACCUSTOMED to that sort of "parental control"... ergo, that particular point in the article about Californians insisting that the state do something... and being upset because the state finally passed a law... which they are apparently not enforcing... which of course makes it rather pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

> Yes, federal law preempts state laws... unless the state laws are even MORE strict.

You mean strictER?

Anyways, not true, look at marijuana; some state laws are looser than the federal law.

[EagleZ28]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

"Anyways, not true, look at marijuana; some state laws are looser than the federal law."

Marijuana is one of VERY few exceptions... where state laws are (in some states) looser than federal law.

Marijuana is also still a gray area... mostly because the federal government hasn't, yet, decided to object to the states having looser laws. I strongly suspect that this is due to the (apparent) fact that marijuana has legitimate medical applications.

[Anonymous Coward]

"that we want privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT."

And do you believe Facebook, Google & C. would be better than any government and with more accountability?

Sure - I know that in the US there are many loonies who believe the government - which they elect - is a kind of monster. Thinking it in a country that believes to be the greater democracy of the world up to the point it wants to "export" it, is quite funny. In turn they elect the very people who will make any government the worst possible.

Anyway a government to work inevitably has a lot of data about citizens - but at least should not try to "monetize" them.

Then, GDPR in now way bars you to give Facebook all your data you want. It just bars Facebook to extort those data from you, and to collect them without your knowledge. Because today you can be "responsible" as you like (but they collect data about children and teenagers too...), but the situation is far from being balanced and fair. GDPR ensures you're the owner of your data. Then do whatever you like. Just, you can ask them to be deleted of example.

Democracy was born exactly to protect less powerful citizens from the powerful ones. It's not "parenting" - it's to ensure it's not a jungle where the 800 pound gorilla rules. Sure, some elites want you to think that's wrong, and the government must be neutered, of course, not because they will have then free way to pursuit their profits at anybody else expense, but in your very own interest... fools bite it.

[EagleZ28]

Re: "that we want privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT."

Facebook, Google, et al, aren't going to come arrest us for something... like a 16yo kid having a beer after a football game, or watching an R-rated movie, or making out with his same-aged girlfriend.

The government MIGHT do that.

The big difference here is needing/wanting privacy from people who DO have authority over you... the ability to punish you.

Therefore, it simply doesn't matter NEARLY AS MUCH, if Google et al would be any "better"... because they don't have any AUTHORITY... unless you work for them, and then, the worst that they could do, would be to fire you.

"The government... is a monster..."

No, our government is not a monster... and I'm aware that some people might disagree with me, and have cause to do so... like the people of North Vietnam circa 1970, just to name one group.

It is not, however, generally a monster to its own people...

unlike some governments in recent history, and currently, for example the Nazi government of 1939-1945.

GDPR -

I wasn't really complaining about the GDPR, only giving an example of how it had negatively impacted me.

Democracy isn't "parenting"...

Well, there I have to disagree with you... because in some places it IS.

Of course, that's not an inherent trait... just one that sometimes happens, depending on the people who vote and the people they elect... and the way that elected, democratic, government BEHAVES.

To give you an example...

The mayor of New York passed a city ordinance to add/raise taxes on soft drinks sold in volumes over a certain size... to help reduce obesity.

That's a VERY "parental" (or patriarchal, or matriarchal) behavior.

That's a fairly recent example. Here in the US, we have a group of mostly older taxes which we actually refer to as "sin taxes"... intended to raise money by "punishing" people for "immoral" behavior, such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and so on. There were other laws, too... "blue laws" which forced certain businesses (like bars, but even grocery stores in some states) to be closed on certain days or at certain times, and so on.

By and large, the "sin taxes" still exist, and have, in MANY cases, only been increased.

The "blue laws" have largely been repealed... but DO have other purposes. Some were also "labor laws" which forced businesses to give their workers at least one day off. Others were intended to protect kids from being exposed to more adult things.

"...to protect less powerful citizens from the powerful ones."

I agree... but governments CAN cross a line... and not only can, but DO... and thus the need to limit them.

To give another example from history... Nazi Germany... where Hitler and his cabal claimed that they were "protecting real Germans (aka Aryans) from the (allegedly too powerful) Jews."

A more recent example could be the USA's "Patriot Act", post 9-11, written into law "to protect us", but which has led to some rather infamous violations of privacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

"Do I care if FB sells info that I'm a male, and wear jeans? No. Even what size/style? No.

Sells my PHONE NUMBER?

Hell yes, I care... which is why I won't give it to them."

So you agree with the GDPR then, which is basically about restricting what they can do when they DON'T have explicit permisson?

[codejunky]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

@LDS

"Yes, they even fought a war for that and the Confederation lost."

Yes. And yet the states try to hold on to their independence and while some of the population prefer federal interference, others push back as is the design.

"They very law discussed here is to have a federal law to avoid each state has its incompatible version"

Yes, and this is where the EU imposition allowed it to just push GDPR onto members, while as this article reads there is more push back and to make something acceptable a bare bones version had been suggested. I am not trying to promote one over the other with that, they just work differently.

"Moreover US have federal crime laws and tax laws while EU still doesn't have anything alike."

The EU uses a different model. The vassal states provide tribute model where member states pay in instead of directly taking from the people. It means no change to the tax collection from a persons perspective but also hides the cost (pros and cons). The EU does make criminal law and has the European arrest warrant for members to pick criminals.

"That's how a democracy works. People elect governments, and governments name authorities members. Which are tasked to ensure laws are respected. Are you telling me the US Supreme Court has no authority because it's not elected by any citizen?"

That is one way to look at it, but when a jobsworth oversteps and pisses off the public (think Germany with the Google news. And that was only news outlets!) it does threaten political jobs until it is fixed. This is also why prohibition didnt work. People might be elected but that doesnt mean they get to impose their desires.

"It's funny after all US people believe they can have freedom without privacy... they balk at the idea of an ID card, but are willingly to let FB & C. profile them down to inside their pants."

This is the critical mistake to make. They dislike the gov breaking their privacy but are fine for what they are willing to give to who they are willing to give. It is the choice to hand over data that makes a difference. There still seems to be the healthy distrust of government which we seem to be lacking here.

"Sure. A company can make all the profits it can within the law. The problem is FB doesn't like rules and wants to enforce its own ones."

They all do. FB will love any law that makes it harder for others to compete but dislike those which stop it from doing as it wants. But there is also the issue of if a business is viable after a law changes, and this situation seems to be coming up. I hope FB pull out, it will be interesting to see if people really care (personally and for their businesses).

"Is exactly the opposite. It's US internet companies that are eager to access EU citizen data - it's a big, rich market."

Data by itself is pretty worthless business wise. So yes accessing more people provides more low value resource to provide profit in concentration and post processing. But while US companies may like to access the EU, the US is the global leader with worldwide reach. The EU is a fledgeling pre-federalised and shrinking portion of the worlds wealth. With all its crises the EU cant afford to cut itself off from something so economically important.

"EU doesn't try to impose its rules internationally."

Yes it does. If you intend to sell to the EU market you must satisfy GDPR hence various international companies cut off the EU instead of bothering with them. If you are selling to the EU market the right to be forgotten (with its many problems) and data rules are to be applied even if you are not in the EU at all.

""Law value resource"? I've read estimates about 7,000 billions recently."

Interesting estimates. But what for? The overall vast quantities of data which needs to be efficiently processed to produce any value. Per person I am not sure it would buy a big bar of chocolate or a coffee.

"I really wish they did. But it's just a blackmail attempt in the hope some whiners will complain. Just like the Google attempts anytime copyright laws are enacted."

So you wish they did. I am sure there are others too. But what about everyone else who does use them and consider them valuable? Especially if its used for their livelihood.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

"Yes, and this is where the EU imposition"

What imposition? Is law voted by the European Parliament voted by European citizens.

" The vassal states provide tribute model"

LOL. There aren't any vassal state - every state joined the EU freely and knew what the rules were. There are still states in queue to join the EU....

"The EU does make criminal law

No. There is a European warrant, but you can't processed by a "European" court.

"when a jobsworth oversteps and pisses off the public"

Which public? Many people think companies profiting from others like Google and Facebook while avoiding also to pay taxes must be made accountable.

" They dislike the gov breaking their privacy but are fine for what they are willing to give to who they are willing to give. It is the choice to hand over data that makes a difference."

It looks you didn't ever read GDPR and don't know what it says. It puts the choice exactly in the citizen hands. GDPR is all about "explicit consent" - which is having a real choice - not a fake enforced choice.

And thinking companies are far better than governments is a silly idea that brought the entire world into the actual crises.

"Yes it does. If you intend to sell to the EU market"

Again LOL!!!! Where you can ignore the local laws to sell into a market? Do you mean I can sell in the US utterly ignoring local laws? It looks you think US has the right to impose its rules everywhere and others must just accept them. while other countries laws are irrelevant. That's what is making US hated everywhere.

"data rules are to be applied even if you are not in the EU at all."

No. Facebook can ignore GDPR for any non-EU citizen or resident. If it means it costs more for FB to do this is just a FB problem. Many other companies face issues because different country regulations - just think about different voltages, plugs, size, etc. etc. Why internet companies should be exempted from local rules?

"They all do."

Again, LOL! Such companies try to defy the laws as much as they can.

"Data by itself is pretty worthless business wise."

It doesn't look at all... looking at Google and Facebook value.

"The EU is [..] shrinking portion of the worlds wealth"

The US is as well. Actually, US sent much more jobs abroad than EU, and a far worse distribution of wealth. Why Trump is so obsessed with tariffs?

"the EU cant afford to cut itself off from something so economically important."

Nor the US can. That's the issue for Facebook.

"Per person I am not sure it would buy a big bar of chocolate or a coffee."

That's why the need to squeeze any data from any person even those not ever using their services. That's why they also need to be denied to be able to do it without explicit consent.

[codejunky]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

@LDS

"What imposition? Is law voted by the European Parliament voted by European citizens."

What citizens voted for this law? The citizens elect the politicians to rubber stamp laws proposed by the unelected. It is an imposition, which is why the EU has less issue imposing it than the US who have states who wish to keep independence.

"LOL. There aren't any vassal state - every state joined the EU freely and knew what the rules were. There are still states in queue to join the EU...."

I ment the structure. It is the member countries who pay tribute/contribution to the EU. The citizens are charged by their country. In the US there is a defined split between federal, state and local tax so you can see who is taking.

"No. There is a European warrant, but you can't processed by a "European" court."

Then why did the EU make the bendy banana law a criminal law with a fine and potential jail time? As for the warrant, that has the unfortunate situation of people being extradited to countries who do not believe in the jury system or have political interference in their judiciary. Germany was suspended from using them after it was decided the court and politicians were too close.

"Which public? Many people think companies profiting from others like Google and Facebook while avoiding also to pay taxes must be made accountable."

Is that the millions who rely on the services? We will see if FB pull out. We already know the news agencies of Spain and Germany prefer Google's service after they tried to extort money from Google.

"It puts the choice exactly in the citizen hands"

Nope. To offer the service to an EU citizen you must jump through vaguely defined rules, some of which will only be clarified after situations are brought to court. Hence it was easier for some companies to just turn off service for the EU. Citizens had choice until then.

"And thinking companies are far better than governments is a silly idea that brought the entire world into the actual crises."

Obviously you have no clue about a crisis then. Governments are to regulate with as little interference as possible. Otherwise crisis.

"Where you can ignore the local laws to sell into a market?"

And that isnt what you are responding to. If a citizen of the EU reaches out to use a service outside the EU with no presence in the EU the GDPR rules are intended to still be applied even though the business may have no presence at all in the EU (and the EU might not even be the intended market!).

"It doesn't look at all... looking at Google and Facebook value."

Then you need to look into the value of a persons data. Not sure it would buy you a cup of coffee.

"The US is as well. Actually, US sent much more jobs abroad than EU, and a far worse distribution of wealth. Why Trump is so obsessed with tariffs?"

The EU being a shrinking portion of the worlds wealth has nothing to do with distribution of wealth in the US. Trump is obsessed with tariffs because he can bring jobs back to America which are cheaper to do elsewhere (hence the tariff being a tax on offshoring the job).

"Nor the US can. That's the issue for Facebook."

You believe. I am seriously not convinced. If the US was so desperate they would have rushed to meet a compromise on data security. Instead the US throws a bone to the EU and the EU cry it has no meat on it. This has been done a few times on the data subject so far and yet the EU has avoided pushing too hard.

"That's why the need to squeeze any data from any person even those not ever using their services. That's why they also need to be denied to be able to do it without explicit consent."

And this entirely contradicts your comment about the value of data by accepting how little it is worth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

"What citizens voted for this law?"

In which country citizens vote a law? It looks to me in US too laws are voted by the US Congress or the state parliaments. Are you an advocate of some kind o "direct democracy" with elections managed by Facebook? Do you believe that EU states are less powerful than US states?

" It is the member countries who pay tribute/contribution to the EU."

Of course. The EU doesn't have "federal taxes". There are only state and local taxes. What goes to the EU is public and well known. Do you believe all citizens are stupid and can't read?

"that has the unfortunate situation of people being extradited to countries who do not believe in the jury system"

That's shows the EU works. Anyway the case is about prosecutors having to tell the Ministry about investigations - so prosecutors are not allowed - but German courts are. In the US prosecutors are often politicians who seek to be elected.... what do they care more? Justice, or their re-election? Look at Epstein, he was able to "make a deal" and keep on....

"Is that the millions who rely on the services? "

The fact that they use the service doesn't mean at all they think FB should be able to do what it likes. I do use a car every day and I'm perfectly fine with safety and pollution regulations. I don't want to drive an unsafe car and be killed by pollution. I do eat every day and I'm perfectly fine with food regulations that avoid I'm quickly or slowly poisoned.

"Nope. To offer the service to an EU citizen you must jump through vaguely defined rules"

Again, it looks you just heard about GDPR and never read it. The rule are clear. And what FB is fighting now is it can't move no longer data to US. It's clear and without ambiguities. I see a lot of FYD about GDPR. Any new law will be challenged in courts by those who try to stop it if they don't like it. You will see that the GDPR will stand in courts.

" If a citizen of the EU reaches out to use a service outside the EU"

If so you're selling in the EU. If I buy something directly in the US the goods will still go through customs and local laws still apply - you can't import some kind of goods, for example, or special rules apply to some of them. Some service may not be available abroad, and you can refuse to make them available.

How I can be responsible of my data if I have no way to control their use as soon as they are brought abroad? If I give my consent for some uses but not others, how can I enforce it in a jurisdiction which has no law to protect it? You don't understand that EU believes privacy is a fundamental rights - not a consumer one like in the US. And fundamental rights don't stop at borders.

"Obviously you have no clue about a crisis then. Governments are to regulate with as little interference as possible. Otherwise crisis."

ROTFL - the 2008 crisis was created exactly by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act - and we see what banks did with the little interference as possible. Then robber barons asked billions from the government to bail them out - is that "interference" good then? Why they didn't say "NOOOO we don't want government interference, we will use our own money!!!!" You're wearing pink glasses, and don't have a clue about economy.

"Then you need to look into the value of a persons data. "

Straw man argument. It's like saying look at the value of a grain of corn! Corn has no value!!! Look at the value of a cent, money has no value!!!

"The EU being a shrinking portion of the worlds wealth has nothing to do with distribution of wealth in the US. "

No? It's the concentration of wealth in a few hands that means the wealth for everybody else shrinks. And they will be tempted to shrink it even more to increase their profits. Sure, for a while debt can offset the shrinking wealth of most people - but sooner or later the system crumbles. Here students don't finish the university burdened with a huge debt.

"If the US was so desperate"

You want little government, the government does nothing, and leaves FB to deal with EU....

"And this entirely contradicts your comment about the value of data by accepting how little it is worth."

Not at all. Of course a social with a single user has no value, like a single atom of gold. And even limited data on many people have little value. But being able to reap any data you can about people with or without their consent makes you rich. Even a single slave would have had no value, but being able to kidnap, sell, and employ many slaves made US rich.

That's why we, the people, want the GDPR. To avoid to become slaves.

[codejunky]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

@LDS

"In which country citizens vote a law?"

Interestingly people vote for politicians who create the laws. The EU intentionally moves the population further away from the law makers. By design it is then easier for the EU to impose GDPR on member states. I thought you would consider that a good thing? More decisive than the US who's federal government would be resisted by the individual states.

"Of course. The EU doesn't have "federal taxes". There are only state and local taxes. What goes to the EU is public and well known. Do you believe all citizens are stupid and can't read?"

Yes, as with the PAYE system, if people have to look for the information they are less likely to care. But if they have to actively see the allocation of their earnings and to where they would question its use more. Most people accept the default, that is why organ donation found having to sign to not do it brought in more than sign up to do it.

"That's shows the EU works."

Being extradited to countries without a jury system is a good thing? Or Germany's politicians influencing the justice system so badly the EU noticed is a good thing? I am not sure where the good is here.

"The fact that they use the service doesn't mean at all they think FB should be able to do what it likes"

And nobody but you has claimed that in this conversation. They use it knowing the data goes to the US and provide the data they are willing to give.

"I do use a car every day and I'm perfectly fine with safety and pollution regulations. I don't want to drive an unsafe car and be killed by pollution"

So your happy with the existing regulations. Then some bureaucratic minion out of boredom or whatever decides to allow cars as long as they dont have an engine. So car manufacturers say nope, that model doesnt work. Would you be accusing car manufacturers of making threats?

"How I can be responsible of my data if I have no way to control their use as soon as they are brought abroad?"

Did you give your data? Did you choose to give data for a service/product? Were you happy to part with said data to get the service/product. Then you are responsible for handing over your data. You did it.

"You don't understand that EU believes privacy is a fundamental rights - not a consumer one like in the US. And fundamental rights don't stop at borders."

But you claimed they didnt try to impose this internationally. In fact I quoted you- 'EU doesn't try to impose its rules internationally.'. And now you claim an EU belief is imposed beyond its borders.

"ROTFL - the 2008 crisis was created exactly by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act - and we see what banks did with the little interference as possible"

With government push to provide housing loans to sub-prime (aka too poor to afford) people. The banks found a way to reduce the risk of the loans which was solid enough for regulators to agree they were good. The crash being due to something unheard of in the US, the housing market in the entire country crashing at the same time.

"Straw man argument"

I tell you a persons data is very low value (hence requiring volume and efficient processing) which you disagree with... and now tell me a persons data is a straw man?

"It's the concentration of wealth in a few hands that means the wealth for everybody else shrinks."

Actually that has been proven wrong. Very wrong in fact. The obvious proof is that global poverty is falling even with rising global population. If actual global poverty is falling then people are getting richer, especially at the poor end. In rich countries where the wealthy pay most of the tax the poor people are even better off as public services are available to them at the cost of those who pay more. Inequality drives greater growth in wealth for all while equality is usually reached in poor economies where not many have much.

"Sure, for a while debt can offset the shrinking wealth of most people - but sooner or later the system crumbles"

No it cant. Debt is moving into negative territory. That is why you can look rich and be poor (keeping up with the Joneses). Amazingly the US and UK offer loans to people who have absolutely no credit history nor collateral! They are called students and the loan is offered because for some reason people think education is worth it (that is a different discussion).

"But being able to reap any data you can about people with or without their consent makes you rich."

Which is not what we are talking about. People choose to give data to FB which they are happy to do for the service. Thats why so many do it.

"Even a single slave would have had no value, but being able to kidnap, sell, and employ many slaves made US rich."

That is a worryingly wrong statement. Since actual slavery still goes on and those countries tend not to be particularly rich, and was the norm long before the rich countries arrived it seems slavery doesnt make a country rich. Also the US didnt need to kidnap slaves, they bought them, often from slavers. Interestingly black men owned black slaves in the US.

"That's why we, the people, want the GDPR. To avoid to become slaves."

So we were all slaves before GDPR but now are free but only in the EU where it is applied? And the rest of the world are slaves? I am not sure you know what slavery is.

[EagleZ28]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

LDS - I have to disagree with you here...

"It's the concentration of wealth in a few hands that means the wealth for everybody else shrinks."

NO.

Your statement says that you perceive wealth to be a finite thing, and therefore, it's a "zero-sum game".

It's NOT. The available wealth keeps growing.

Just for example, OIL was worthless five-hundred years ago... but look what it did for a bunch of Arab sheikhs, for example.

Even the wind has hard monetary value these days, since owners of wind generators will pay to harness the wind blowing over your land.

Other things, especially some metals, have gone from being of little-to-no-value, to being very valuable indeed, as we find uses/needs for them.

These days, you can go to your local hospital and get better medical care than the richest kings, queens, and so on could get just a hundred years ago.

In 1929, we had a HUGE depression here in the US, "The Great Depression". MANY people literally starved to death.

Here in the US, a lot of pundits claimed that the depression of 2008 was even worse... but only if you looked ONLY at purely financial data... NO ONE STARVED TO DEATH... and very few people "flew" out of the windows or off the roofs of tall buildings... unlike in 1929.

Returning to the more common meaning of "wealth" though...

Just because someone like Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerberg, et al, become multi-billionaires, or even "gazillionaires"... does that make *you* (or anyone else) less "wealthy"? Poorer?

NO.

In fact, both men helped to make quite a few other people wealthy... if they were smart enough to get in on the stock market early.

In short, though, if you've got enough money for the things that you need, you are quite a bit wealthier, in REAL terms.

For his day, George Washington was quite a wealthy man... and yet he couldn't afford a decent set of dentures (by today's standard of decent).

[EagleZ28]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

"And thinking companies are far better than governments is a silly idea that brought the entire world into the actual crises."

NOT BETTER...

Hell, they might even be WORSE... IF THEY HAD THE POWER THAT GOVERNMENTS HAVE... but they DON'T!

Google can't tax you... (although they might decide to charge a fee, which you can then refuse to pay simply by not using them)... they can't throw you in jail, or worse, a gulag... or put a gun to your head.

It's pretty hard to be a tyrant, no matter how evil you might be, when you just don't have POWER.

[EagleZ28]

Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

In reference to this one comment:

"... they balk at the idea of an ID card, but are willingly to let FB & C. profile them down to inside their pants."

The "balking at the idea of an ID card" is really NOT about privacy... it's about pure politics.

The people who complained about ID cards, specifically in conjunction with laws about VOTING, were objecting to how some people might then be prevented from voting.

In 1960, in some places, that might have been a legitimate concern.

Back then, we had "Jim Crow laws" which were specifically intended to disenfranchise some legitimate voters... namely Blacks... to prevent them from voting.

More recently, the picture ID's being discussed were done so, once again, in the context of voting... but it was to prevent NON-CITIZENS from being able to vote in our elections.

THIS TIME, it would have been quite difficult to "sneak" into blocking legal citizens from being able to vote. The only ones who would have a hard time getting that government-issued photo ID would have been illegal aliens... which was rather the POINT of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Interesting interpretation

"The EU works a different way where it imposes its rules onto the members who are expected to follow it."

Those would be laws made by concensus, by democratically elected members.

"Facebook is already stating it may pull out of Europe due to bureaucrats thinking they know best- "

In this case, "bureaucrats" do know best, however, enough of this "bureaucrat" bullshit. We're not Mail/Express readers, you're not fooling anyone.

The EU has civil servants, yes, but the parliament makes the laws.

By the way, the EU has 33,000, yet the UK has 400,000 and is run by Cummings... Who is really run by bureaucrats?

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2019/02/19/is-the-european-union-governed-by-unelected-bureaucrats/

[Drew Scriver]

Re: Interesting interpretation

Downvoted for this statement:

"Those would be laws made by concensus, by democratically elected members."

The average EU-citizen has no idea what's being legislated in Brussels and a significant percentage would be aghast if they knew...

I heard somewhere that one of the EU-members recently left the Union because of this, and others are apparently stirring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Interesting interpretation

So you agree with a comment I make, but downvoted because you don't like what it says?

[Drew Scriver]

Re: Interesting interpretation

No, I downvoted because in the end it's not nearly as democratic as it is billed to be. The consensus bit is also not reflective of the current status, unless you are referring to consensus among the politicians in Brussels.

I maintain that the consensus is not found among the citizens, especially if they were fully cognizant of all the rules and regulations that come out of the EU government.

Which, of course, is why the Brits seceded.

[EagleZ28]

Re: Interesting interpretation

Thanks, Codejunky, for presenting both sides of the debate so well... and without the blatant bias of the author of the article.

At the time I post this, your comment has 6 down-votes... which I interpret to mean 6 people who follow the "shoot the messenger" school of thought... or perhaps 6 people who are simply triggered by learning that there is another side who have actual reasons supporting their own opinions/beliefs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Interesting interpretation

LOL. Perhaps you should read it more carefully. Or read the replies. His post is full of bias that looks blatant to the rest of us.

[Eclectic Man]

Ownership of personal data

I don't see why Republicans are so anti each citizen owning their own data, after all, then I could licence companies to use it, in the same way MicroSoft or Apple licence me to use their OS. (He wrote naively.)

[codejunky]

Re: Ownership of personal data

@Eclectic Man

"I don't see why Republicans are so anti each citizen owning their own data"

I think its more about personal freedom and responsibility

[fix]

Re: Ownership of personal data

I think that the personal freedom and responsibility approach would make sense IF you could personally decide not to share you data easily.

However the larger tech companies, and also some fairly unheard of tracking companies have gone to great lengths to prevent people from choosing not to share their data.

This goes from simple items like FB trackers on sites that are not FB, and track people that are not even FB users, to some analytical techniques that will try and ID a user that has browsed in private, with DNT enabled, and has clearly indicated that they wish not to be tracked. These techniques include trying to fingerprint the user from other browser details that are leaked, and even down to the way they move the mouse on the page.

https://www.cs.sjsu.edu/faculty/pollett/papers/shivanipaper.pdf

When data companies are trying this hard to break any attempt by the users to have their own privacy then personal freedom and responsibility have nothing to do with it.

That is why we need protection from these companies who will not, in the slightest, respect our personal freedom or choices.

[EagleZ28]

Re: Ownership of personal data

Here's a real-world example for you...

A few years ago, I was a member of a site where people volunteered to exchange a certain type of info, in order to connect with other people with a similar interest... and similar "data".

After the EU passed that privacy law, the entire site went down... gone... poof.

Now, it's a lot harder for me to connect with those people... and that was an entirely voluntary sharing of data.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ownership of personal data

GDPR allows them to share data you agree to. It's one of it's most fundamental premises.

The site shut down for other reasons, or the owner is a fool, or you're making it up.

[EagleZ28]

Re: Ownership of personal data

If I remember the reasoning correctly, they shut the site down because:

1) Some of the data belonged to people who died between the data being posted to the website, and the date that the GDPR was passed.

2) A *lot* of the people whose data had been posted had changed email addresses over the intervening years, and couldn't be contacted to get the new required permissions.

In the end, the owners/operators of the website simply judged that it was too impractical or expensive (in time and effort) to comply with the new rules... so they complied by shutting it down.

(BTW, those are NOT "BS reasons"... I know for a fact that one of the gents in question had passed on, but didn't learn that until much later, when I finally made contact with someone else who HAD been in contact with him prior to his death... and there were numerous cases when I tried to contact people by email, only to receive an "undeliverable" notice.)

[Mike 137]

"Four years after Europe sorted this..."

In practice, not really. Practically no organisation fully complies with the GDPR. At best they go through the motions on paper (often in a very perfunctory, if not actually unlawful, manner) and very few breaches of the legislation attract the attention of the regulators.

This is however not specific to the GDPR, it's a general issue referred to officially as "compliance". In business speak that means "what's the least we can get away with doing to keep the regulator off our backs?" and as data protection legislation is not policed but depends on complaints, practically no enforcement actually happens.

[ecofeco]

Why so long?

It's takes time to figure out how to properly screw the American consumer.