US commerce bosses view EU rules as threat to its clouds More than a dozen industry associations including the US Chamber of Commerce this week issued a joint statement warning the EU against adopting rules that would effectively exclude US cloud providers like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft from doing business in much of Europe. The statement filed by 13 industry associations, …
If those companies and governments stop messing with EU data and consider they can do whatever they want as these data were theirs, maybe things would be different. As it is not the case, it's good to see EU institutions are doing what is required to protect EU citizens and companies.
I hope these rules will be enforced, the sooner the better.
== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==
@Pascal Monett
"No, they are designed to ensure that EU data stays in the EU.
If you don't like it, tough. That's the way the ball is rolling now and you're not going to stop it."
Roll on the new iron curtain. The EU cutting itself off from the world one bit at a time.
Cutting yourself off Facebook and Twitter might be a service to humanity.
Seriously, your argument is disingenuous at best. It's colonialism to say those countries should actually feel honored we bother stealing their resources, because of course we have a much better use for them than those primitive savages. (What better use can there be than to make me (myself) rich?...)
And yes, PI are resources, the proof is they're worth money.
(Didn't downvote you though.)
@ThatOne
"Seriously, your argument is disingenuous at best. It's colonialism to say those countries should actually feel honored we bother stealing their resources"
I dont think my argument is disingenuous, I think you misunderstand the situation. You say stealing. Who is stealing? First nobody is being deprived of their information and second people freely choose if they wish to share it or not. If you choose to give me your name I have not stolen it from you and also you choose to give me your name. Just as you can choose not to.
"Cutting yourself off Facebook and Twitter might be a service to humanity."
Very possibly. But the green eyes of the EU is not a secret and their recent flop didnt go well- https://gizmodo.com/metaverse-eu-virtual-party-avatars-1849840311
*didnt downvote you either
I expect it is the continuation of isolating itself in protectionism. Hoping they can make an equivalent successful business to rival the US businesses. Personally I think it foolish as continuing to copy US successes when people should be left to find future success.
https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/the-eus-failed-innovation-policy-offers-lessons-for-the-us/
First nobody is being deprived of their information and second people freely choose if they wish to share it or not.
They are being deprived of their sovereign rights to privacy, and many cannot choose to opt out of this if it is some gov agency, employer, or key business that has gone with the lowest-bidding company that plays fast and loose with data reuse rules.
> Who is stealing? First nobody is being deprived of their information and second people freely choose if they wish to share it or not.
This is where we disagree. I think that if I give you (codejunky) my PI because you offer me a service requiring it, I have a reasonable expectation that you don't resell it to world & dog. You probably think this expectation isn't all that reasonable, and since I've given you this information, it's now yours to decide what to do with. Sorry, legally this might be considered breach of trust, and some obscure, legalese-heavy TOS hidden in a disaffected lavatory doesn't change anything about it. People can't be expected to hire a lawyer each time they need to create an online account.
.
> https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/the-eus-failed-innovation-policy-offers-lessons-for-the-us/
This article somehow assumes that Europe did at some point have competitors to Facebook, Twitter et al., competitors which eventually failed because of some "failed innovation policy" (whatever that is). Well, I'm not aware of any EU attempts to create a competitor to Facebook or Twitter, so protectionism isn't really required here, is it. There are domains in which it would make much more sense, things on which the EU does indeed compete (or at least tries to) with the US of A. Online giants isn't one of them, and given their questionable utility, that's more a lack than a failure. They don't have a lot of things other countries might have, ancient pyramids for instance... :-p
(Didn't downvote you once again.)
@ThatOne
"I think that if I give you (codejunky) my PI because you offer me a service requiring it, I have a reasonable expectation that you don't resell it to world & dog"
Kind of but not necessarily. It is reasonable that it is not sold on for illegal purposes. Using the data to personalise a service (e.g. adverts) sounds reasonable. An attempt to show more of what you are interested in (some success and failure in this). I might offer a service but you dont need to take the service I offer, and often there are alternatives available.
"People can't be expected to hire a lawyer each time they need to create an online account."
That is very true. Just as to provide a service shouldnt be so buried in legalese to offer. The kid churning out his idea shouldnt be squashed by the weight of bureaucracy.
"This article somehow assumes that Europe did at some point have competitors to Facebook, Twitter et al."
Actually it states (early on) that the document notes Europe doesnt have such companies and attempts to deliver by policy has failed. I think it was the mobile market it focused on the EU having then losing.
"Well, I'm not aware of any EU attempts to create a competitor to Facebook or Twitter, so protectionism isn't really required here, is it."
I can understand not hearing about them but thats due to a lack of success-
https://crast.net/45799/the-european-union-already-has-its-own-version-of-twitter-and-youtube/
"They don't have a lot of things other countries might have, ancient pyramids for instance... :-p"
Dont give them ideas :)
"(Didn't downvote you once again.)"
Dont worry about it. I aint downvoting yours either. Just people unwilling or unable to join the discussion. I appreciate your discussion though
>Kind of but not necessarily. It is reasonable that it is not sold on for illegal purposes.
Good luck trying to enforce that one.
Remember the US companies are merely complaining that someone else is setting the rules and that complying with them will cost them money - life is so unfair...
>The kid churning out his idea shouldnt be squashed by the weight of bureaucracy.
If the kid wants to sell their product in the market then they will need to comply with the regulations. Bureaucracy only gets involved when that requires filling out lots of pointless forms, waiting on bureaucrats and jumping through hoops - ie. what the UK government created when it proposed the Brexit NI protocol....
@Roland6
"Good luck trying to enforce that one."
About as successful as policing GDPR I would expect.
"Remember the US companies are merely complaining that someone else is setting the rules and that complying with them will cost them money - life is so unfair..."
That is true, I do agree. It is the trade off of tighter regulation vs freedom to grow. The more money, complexity and restriction of an activity reduces exploration in that activity. Growth comes from increased activity. But the very valid flip side as you and others are mentioning is the protection of the people. It depends where countries (and the EU) are willing to make that cut.
"If the kid wants to sell their product in the market then they will need to comply with the regulations. Bureaucracy only gets involved when that requires filling out lots of pointless forms, waiting on bureaucrats and jumping through hoops - ie. what the UK government created when it proposed the Brexit NI protocol...."
No argument with any of that. I agree
Growth of corporations is not an intrinsic public good.
Freedom to grow is not an objective.
Corporate growth is generally based on being able to ultimately increase prices by reducing competition.
This is quite clearly at play in the so-called technology space, where the US mega corps run massively loss making businesses cross subsidised from de-facto monopolies. Google is the standard bearer for this.
Uber has run loss making operations for a decade, all based on the plan of gaining a monopoly on the taxi business by driving smaller competitors out of business. (and then putting all the drivers out of work by automation)
--Uber has run loss making operations for a decade, all based on the plan of gaining a monopoly on the taxi business by driving smaller competitors out of business. (and then putting all the drivers out of work by automation)--
It may work in the future but it hasn't worked yet.
"It is reasonable that it is not sold on for illegal purposes."
Downvote because, no, it's not reasonable that you take information that I have provided to you (for supplying your service to me) and sell it to any third party. Or try to aggregate different bits of information along with a "fill in the blanks" bit of guesswork and then sell that as if it was real information.
But, really, this is splitting hairs on order to distract from the real menace.
And that is that information placed into "the cloud" can no longer be considered private. If you were a company making widgets, and all your designs were CAD files and PDFs held on a server that happened to be located in America, how do you know this stuff wasn't copied into a USB key and handed to a local competitor? You don't. It relies upon trust because there's no way to know who has access to the data once it's out of your direct sight. Couple this with a regime generally hostile to the concept of personal privacy and all the secrecy of The Patriot Act (the name alone should tell you a lot), and it's pretty clear that anybody used to EU style privacy that has any trust in an American provider...is a fool.
This isn't the EUs problem to fix, it's America's. Get ready for Schrems III.
@heyrick
"Downvote because, no, it's not reasonable that you take information that I have provided to you (for supplying your service to me) and sell it to any third party"
Why? There was an interesting argument a while back about how facebook should pay the users for their data. Turned out the data was practically worthless individually, its the seriously huge dataset and then being able to process over such a large dataset that has value. The same applies in medicine when dealing with rare issues in which sample size of a country may not even be enough.
I would say it is more about balance and that balance is not something in stone and identical per country (or in the US even state).
"And that is that information placed into "the cloud" can no longer be considered private."
I do agree. I am not a 'cloud' fan but others have managed success based on cloud tech. Especially for those of limited means needing to rent larger resources.
"If you were a company making widgets, and all your designs were CAD files and PDFs held on a server that happened to be located in America, how do you know this stuff wasn't copied into a USB key and handed to a local competitor?"
That would be the same scenario as outsourcing to China. Where they copied designs and ideas etc. And through sheer determination they only recently managed to manufacture the nib of a ball point pen.
"Couple this with a regime generally hostile to the concept of personal privacy and all the secrecy of The Patriot Act"
UK anti terror legislation went too far too. The idea that European countries are not spying is amusing. Germany got in a tizz over NSA spying only when the NSA listened to Merkels calls, after helping the NSA access the infrastructure!
"This isn't the EUs problem to fix, it's America's. Get ready for Schrems III."
That is one belief. I just wonder if the EU is going to be cutting itself off as it has a lot more to lose.
Schrems III is kinda the point.
As long as the US has a law that says "It doesn't matter what's in the contract between a non-US national and a US corporation, or the subsidiary of a US corporation, or wherever the data is actually located, under whatever jurisdiction, if the US security services ask the US corporation for the data, it must be provided, without necessarily notifying the non-US national.", any data stored in a US cloud service cannot be locked such that only the non-US national has access.
I'm not following these arguments. By default, this may be the case (no idea). However, it is absolutely possible to set the cloud storage up in such a way that the data can't be provided (an encrypted copy of the data could be provided but that's not usable).
This is the key point, it's about the US deciding that it's reach extends to overseas subsidiaries and it can practice the "American Way" and just take whatever data it feels like. The list of agencies that can demand non-US data is extensive, it's considerably more than just the major agencies or central government.
The EU ruling is to ensure that the data and operations are operated legally and properly and to make it clear that US laws cannot override other nation's laws just because the US decided to say so.
Take the specific example of Microsoft Ireland, the US was pushing for free access to data held in Microsoft's data centres located in Ireland. They had established protocols to request access to this data, but they tried the route of demanding that Microsoft Ireland, a subsidiary of Microsoft US, had to just provide the data with no delays and to do so with no questions whatsoever. Microsoft Ireland is a company registered in Ireland and it is wholly and totally subject to the laws of Ireland, not the US. The US responded to this with the "cloud act" which required that non-US operations and subsidiaries fall under the law of the US when it came to data. This put Microsoft Ireland in a rather tough spot...
The quick and dirty solution, of course, was to just mirror the data in Microsoft Ireland to Microsoft US, in the name of "global coverage" and as soon as the data was stored in a regime such as the US, the data was freely available to any US agency that demands it.
The EU law is to ensure that EU located data remains in the EU and other nations do not have arbitrary access to it without going through the proper legal channels. It's definitely not so much about anti-competitive actions and making it harder for overseas multinationals to establish local operations, it's about ensuring that they do so with the same legal frameworks. While the usual cheerleaders are spittling on about how this is an attack on US corporations and it's going to make it impossible for them to operate and some nonsense about "innovation", which is mostly about wringing every bit of money out of consumers, the operational impact is trivial. It's not as if, for example, Microsoft Ireland don't need locally based staff and teams to oversea their systems and it's not that they can't apply their economies of scale and experience to managing and deploying their ventures.
"The US responded to this with the "cloud act" which required that non-US operations and subsidiaries fall under the law of the US when it came to data. This put Microsoft Ireland in a rather tough spot..."
I mean, the utter f***ing cheek of it is just gobsmacking.
"I just wonder if the EU is going to be cutting itself off as it has a lot more to lose."
From outside the borders of the land of the "free" one might observe the US cutting itself not so much "off" as "up".
Increasingly damaging fighting between political factions... gun laws that protect the rights for USians to easily be able to kill other USians... the best politicians that money can buy... the Industrial Military Complex...
Some of these characteristics might be exactly the sort that other countries might wish to cut themselves off from.
"That is one belief. I just wonder if the EU is going to be cutting itself off as it has a lot more to lose."
Fog in The Channel. Europe cut off!
Maybe it's not the EU that is cutting itself off from the US, but the actions and refusal to act on privacy that is gradually isolating the US from the rest of the world. There are people and places in the US that see the EU policy on privacy as a good thing and are trying to implement similar in the US under huge opposition and watering down by rich lobbying. But at least it shows the US is isn't a homogenous nation of data gatherers.
@John Brown (no body)
"Fog in The Channel. Europe cut off!"
I am amused at how often this is brought up. That the holy land cant seem to do any wrong no matter what.
"Maybe it's not the EU that is cutting itself off from the US, but the actions and refusal to act on privacy that is gradually isolating the US from the rest of the world."
Possibly but- "The statement filed by 13 industry associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, Japan’s Association of New Economy, and the Latin American Internet Association"
"But at least it shows the US is isn't a homogenous nation of data gatherers."
To be honest I consider it a strength that the US isnt homogeneous but each state being able to play to its strengths.
To be honest I consider it a strength that the US isn't homogeneous but each state being able to play to its strengths.It's the most comical and ridiculous notion that some in the US have (that and claims that the US is a democracy and christian)... It would be rather more accurate to rename the US "the Disjointed States" or similar.
Possibly but- "The statement filed by 13 industry associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, Japan’s Association of New Economy, and the Latin American Internet AssociationUS Industry lobby and protectionist groups are not exactly going to not complain about anything that impacts their harvesting of the dollar... ethics, laws and so on are a distant consideration for these king of groups.
Many examples of equally stupid and self-serving groups are available everywhere as, for a price, there are always politicians willing to be bribed (lobbied) to push forward agendas. Look up the insane "Locomotive Acts" in the UK where the train companies bribed politicians to push this crazy law... which was rather ironic as they suffered similar laws pushed against them previously by the canal companies who were threatened by trains. The red flag vehicle law was even copied into the US for a while too.
@Nick Ryan
"US Industry lobby and protectionist groups are not exactly going to not complain about anything that impacts their harvesting of the dollar... ethics, laws and so on are a distant consideration for these king of groups."
It is true that the lobby groups are about protecting their own interests. Just as government is about protecting theirs (sometimes even their people).
@captain veg
"If corporations can't or won't comply with the law in the territories they want to operate in, it is they who are cutting themselves off."
An interestingly backward view. You can consider it a good or a bad thing for the EU to do this but if the EU is adding restrictions to lock out foreign competition it is the EU cutting themselves off from that competition.
It is little different from the threat the EU made about cutting itself off from London. They changed their minds as the Eurozone would suffer a hard recession for doing so but it would be EU action to cut themselves off.
@JohnMurray
"I think they only changed their mind until a majority of UK-based finance departed into the EU....that migration outwards is ongoing.."
That was the wet dream but it didnt materialise. Instead they got some brass plates and brassed off. So brassed off they are still trying to force banks to move over- https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ecb-force-uk-based-investment-banks-relocate-staff-trading-2022-05-19/
An interestingly backward view. You can consider it a good or a bad thing for the EU to do this but if the EU is adding restrictions to lock out foreign competition it is the EU cutting themselves off from that competition.This is about data sovereignty and not restrictions on trade. Overseas multi-nationals are not being stopped from starting or operating in the EU, just that it is being made very clear in local law that the likes of the US Cloud Act cannot and will not be accepted - the US's laws have no place outside the US.
It is little different from the threat the EU made about cutting itself off from London. They changed their minds as the Eurozone would suffer a hard recession for doing so but it would be EU action to cut themselves off.The "EU" never made such a threat, it was the usual nonsense and lies thrown out by quasi-legal groups such as the "European Research Group". What was announced was that UK-EU financial trade relies heavily on a lack of additional restrictions and that therefore if the UK was stupid enough to leave the EU then it would make a major impact on many UK financial institutions that operate(d) within the EU. The earlier drafts of the UK/EU agreement even made specific provisions to retain the UK financial operations however the UK government rejected these for the usual stupid "sovereignty" reasons. As a result the UK financial market was cut off from operating in the EU directly. There were ways around this which is why there are so many new additional operations opened in various cities in the EU, however these have not tended to centralise in one location.
@Nick Ryan
"This is about data sovereignty and not restrictions on trade"
Which by using 'data sovereignty' arguments puts restriction on trade (so it seems).
"just that it is being made very clear in local law that the likes of the US Cloud Act cannot and will not be accepted - the US's laws have no place outside the US."
I take little issue with that idea. Seems odd when European countries help the US bug their own countries which is why I am more sceptical of the 'benevolent government'.
"The "EU" never made such a threat"
Yes they did. Using a similar attack as 'data sovereignty'-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj706j_2-T7AhVNiFwKHQ4CCCYQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Feuropean-commission-draws-up-plans-to-relocate-london-euro-clearing-2017-5&usg=AOvVaw2OKpGSiycYi17L_QABmMcn
"It is reasonable that it is not sold on for illegal purposes."
How about "given" or "handed over" rather than "sold"? Is it the monetary transaction that's important? Does the word "illegal" mean "against law in either my country or your country"? (Hope you lave multinational lawyers on staff.) Would it mean acceptance of liability if the data is used for illegal purposes (whether or not you had the ability, foresight, or power to guard against that)?
I'm guessing you mean, "if it's ok in my country, it should be ok for you regardless of whatever your local laws may say."
"Using the data to personalise a service (e.g. adverts) sounds reasonable. "
It might, IF I have explicitly agreed to that. (Personally, I don't want unsolicited adverts, in e-mail we call those "spam". And I want personalised adverts even less.)
-- It might, IF I have explicitly agreed to that. --
Thanks to the wonderful EU you have the possibility of doing that from the cookies popups. Have you ever just accepted because you'd like to go to that website?
"Using the data to personalise a service (e.g. adverts) sounds reasonable. An attempt to show more of what you are interested in."
About as reasonable as it would be for me to cover your house with posters that "show more of what you are interested in".
"I might offer a service but you dont need to take the service I offer, and often there are alternatives available."
Plastering posters on someone's house might not be considered to be a "service" by them, but an uninvited and unwanted intrusion. Claiming to offer "a service" is hollow and delusional if (1) it is not wanted by the person you claim is being served and (2) is imposed, rather than offered.
@Smeagolberg
"About as reasonable as it would be for me to cover your house with posters that "show more of what you are interested in"."
What an odd suggestion. I dont get adverts unless I go somewhere online that shows them. Even then I have adblocker. I get emails from some places I want to see and others I unsubscribe or send to junk. I dont see how that could even come close to someone sticking posters to your house?
> It is reasonable that it is not sold on for illegal purposes.
Ah, that should be all of them. Personal data should ****NEVER**** be sold, full stop.
Personal data may be transferred where strictly necessary to provide the service (eg, name and address passed to a shipping company to deliver your freshly ordered widget), and may not be transferred for any other purpose. The general position of the EU is somewhat looser, but I haven't yet heard an actual reasonable justification for anything weaker.
> Using the data to personalise a service (e.g. adverts) sounds reasonable. An attempt to show more of what you are interested in (some success and failure in this).
Strong anecdotal evidence says it fails almost exactly 100% of the time, when it's not being just plain weird. Advertisers are HORRIBLE at getting this even reasonably sane. How many times has "I just bought a $FOO, why am I only now suddenly getting ads for not just other-brand $FOO's, but the same damn thing I just bought!!" come up in these comments? I've just had a case of this myself. Utterly baffling and pointless, unless you try to justify advertising budgets as retroactive costs. "We just sold $100k of widgets, we better advertise them quick!"
> I expect it is the continuation of isolating itself in protectionism.
Actually this is not about protectionism but a convergence of two factors:
* Lack of legal recourse for non-US private parties (including children) who have their data taken by US spy agencies.
* Basic national security considerations.
> Hoping they can make an equivalent successful business to rival the US businesses.
In the post WWII environment that was not possible, as a result of the conditions imposed on us (Western Europe) by the US. That is one reason why the only credible (but still far behind) competitors are coming out of China, not Europe.
I would say that Chinese tech companies are doing it much better than US ones, who nobble themselves with excess greed and short-termism. US corps look a lot more like one trick ponies.
It seems to be in US corporate DNA to abandon any business that don't make a river of gold.
Although I think that MS and Amazon have been relatively good at playing the long game/
--In the post WWII environment that was not possible, as a result of the conditions imposed on us (Western Europe) by the US. That is one reason why the only credible (but still far behind) competitors are coming out of China, not Europe.--
Japan did quite well after WWII.
The reason could be that China is/was quite happy to appropriate IP and had access to long term funding.
Methinks it is you, codejunky, who is being disingenuous.
If I give you my 'name', you are not stealing it, but if you then use that information in bad faith and without my knowledge or consent, I have every right to believe you are at best an unreliable actor, or at worst an enemy.
Either way you have lost my trust and I will be happy to have no further dealings with you, to strike you off my Christmas card list, and to replace your services with something that is more ethically sound and offers me proper control of 'my' data.
"That sounds very much like the market approach and real world approach we all use day to day."
What is this "real world approach" of which you speak? The "market approach" seems less and need connected to what many might consider to be the real world.
-- If I give you my 'name', you are not stealing it, but if you then use that information in bad faith and without my knowledge or consent, I have every right to believe you are at best an unreliable actor, or at worst an enemy. --
How about if he gets your name from a public source say the phone book?
The use of publicly available data is still covered, as in the appropriate use of such data. Hoovering up publicly available data and using it for purposes other than which it was originally provided is not permissible.
This is, of course, rather the opposite of what many of the typical barely-legal advertising data organisations want to do, therefore there are all kinds of pathetic and annoying ways that they lie about this. I suspect most people here will have come across the lie that "you received this email because you subscribed to these messages on our website" and that's the kind of thing these kind of organisations take part in. Usually they just lie to the companies they sell the information to, claiming that it was all provided properly and the recipients are willing recipients when they are nothing of the sort. The company selling the information just disappears, usually to reappear with a different name a few weeks after they receive an ICO fine (on the rare occasion this happens) and the company that used the information gets their reputation tarnished further.
OK, let me turn this question around then:
Why are US users not enititled to privacy?
The EU is simply enfocing a 1948 agreement that the US also signed, known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
That commercial interests have been allowed to ignore all three critical elements (privacy, no attacks upon honour or reputation and the right to protection) does not make them any less valid.
The howling that they're now taken to task by the EU is thus at best seriously disingenuous.
@Fred Flintstone
"Why are US users not enititled to privacy?"
Did I say that?
"The EU is simply enfocing a 1948 agreement that the US also signed, known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in Article 12:"
Ok??
"That commercial interests have been allowed to ignore all three critical elements (privacy, no attacks upon honour or reputation and the right to protection) does not make them any less valid."
Commercial and government I would point out.
"The howling that they're now taken to task by the EU is thus at best seriously disingenuous."
Ok. Now lets go back to people wanting jobs, wanting to access US services, wanting products. The governments in the EU and the EU itself not wanting recession, to fix their budget issues, to keep the lights on, have military security and so on.
I'd guess that in 1948 the concept of privacy did not include such concepts as eye colour, height etc as it seems to do now, and that ignores the fact that much of what is considered personal information would not have existed in a captureable form back then. Internet browsing history - hmmm.
It's not about stealing EU citizens' data, it's about making money from the data.
Also, the US CLOUD act means all data held by US companies is up for grabs by American agencies even if it is about EU citizens and held in Europe. GDPR and CLOUD are fundamentally incompatible.
"Hoping they can make an equivalent successful business to rival the US businesses. Personally I think it foolish as continuing to copy US successes when people should be left to find future success."
There are many ways to define success... art, literature, science, happiness, stability, etc. Many of the values espoused by US businesses are not universally viewed as epitomising success. Indeed, by some measures they could be considered the antithesis of success.
Yeah, like I give a fuck about U.S. billionaires making money. That's not how I define success, especially when their success is the only goal and everyone else is supposed to shut up and not interfere. They feel ENTITLED to that money, and if they don't get it, they will blame everybody else.
@Smeagolberg
"Many of the values espoused by US businesses are not universally viewed as epitomising success. Indeed, by some measures they could be considered the antithesis of success."
I think you would struggle for universally viewed as success. But the US does get specially vilified such as your last sentence. Yet when it comes to peoples revealed preferences some US businesses do pretty well. Often the ones being vilified.
First resolve any problems relating to Maslow's hierarchy of needs then worry about all the other wonderful things you mention.
Success = getting enough to eat, having somewhere to shelter from the elements etc.
Oh... so true especially now that Elon has invited all his Ultra MAGA pals back onto Twitter.
M'Lord, I present the latest edition of "Info Wars" where Ye ranted on about how good a guy Adolf H was. All while wearing a black hood.
The crazies are running riot in the USofA. Just wait until DeSantis becomes POTUS in 2024. You ain't seen nothing yet.
As well as throwing Facebook and Twitter out of Europe (the EU + UK + Switzerland + Norway) you can put a cherry on top of the icing by adding Google to the list.
If the above mentioned companies want to carry on then the should hive off their European subsidiaries and have those companies are listed on one of the many stock exchanges in Europe. Have a local BOD and monitors to ensure that all the slurping of personal data by Uncle Sam and the US Hegemony in general.
It does amuse me - in a somewhat cynical and world-weary way, I'll admit - that Ye was able to say whatever he liked until such time as he posted an unflattering picture of Twitter's new overlord, at which point Twitter announced they were considering kicking him off the platform again.
I'm sure those two things are, of course, totally unrelated and not in the slightest bit connected...
It appears that there ARE limits, though - money seems to have spoken.
Ye has been booted off Twitter which is probably the best sign yet that Tim Cook has effectively read Musk the riot act when he visited Apple HQ (for those watching, Musks's tone was notably different when he returned from that get together), but the best indication of how far Ye has drifted off the reservation came a bit later from Parler who announced they were no longer interested in him buying them.
I mean, right-wing moron and conspiracy theorists hosting Parler saying you're too much? Wow.
It suggests there may be a nice padded room in his future.
@Codejunky
You comment reminds me of this.
The 1950s Daily Mail headline: "FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE ISOLATED"
One can actually point out that Europe is about twice to the USA in population.
No need to be too subordinated.
> The 1950s Daily Mail headline: "FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE ISOLATED"
That story is apochryphal, it was started as a joke about British insularity but no such headline was published by the Mail or any other paper. Some papers did spoof versions of it around the time of Brexit, though.
@Lars
"One can actually point out that Europe is about twice to the USA in population."
China's population is larger than Europes. Even when they were mostly in poverty and isolating with the Communist bloc's
@Adair
"Oh boy, with a response like that you merely confirm everyone's suspicions; not that there isn't overwhelming evidence already. [sigh]"
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. Lars for some reason seemed (unless I misunderstood) to be equating population with status. I was responding to that. I could use India as an example too. What is your issue?
You comparing apples to oranges: EU ~ China
The OP compared the US and EU pops, where clearly other socio-economic factors are broadly similar.
You then come up with a non-sequiter as though that somehow obviously defeats the original comparison.
It's a very destructive form of arguing, usually described as being 'obtuse', or 'wilfully missing the point'.
@Adair
"You comparing apples to oranges: EU ~ China"
But a valid criteria based on the criteria as I understood it. Look at the response from Lars and my further response.
"The OP compared the US and EU pops, where clearly other socio-economic factors are broadly similar."
I would prefer clarification from Lars (which he has added below) as he knows what he is trying to explain to me.
"It's a very destructive form of arguing, usually described as being 'obtuse', or 'wilfully missing the point'."
If you have nothing to add I would suggest you butt out or have your own train of thought for discussion. I dont know how Lars feels about it but I dont think he needs your hand up his arse pretending you are the one doing the speaking.
@Lars
"And no I did not equate population with status but with business, with money."
It seems your point wasnt clear or I missed it. Either way population size does not determine businesses with money (see China/India example). Or that the EU is a shrinking portion of the worlds wealth as there is more growth to be had outside of it. To more people.
I suspect ignoramuses that don't know the workings of the European Commission, which give Europe a bad name. This is also with some difference the worst Commission in the history of the Union.
And btw, European Commission ≠ European Union ≠ Europeism.
The bad name comes from the fact Europeans don't want to be the USA's nice doggie anymore, and this isn't the movies, in real life nobody likes a rebel.
Fortunately there still is the UK to cosy up with its good old uncle Sam...
If anything, it is ensuring that non-EU providers do enter the market on an equal footing, and not an unequal one where their EU competitors have to follow the rules and they do not.
"But, but, but, then I can't make money selling your data on". Cry me a river, late stage capitalism is killing its host.
Problem I see is that EU cloud providers are pretty crap.. I dont think I would want to use them for my production systems. So I am left to do it all myself, and as a smallish company with limited budget, I don't want to hire a bunch of people to maintain data centres
"smallish company with limited budget, I don't want to hire a bunch of people to maintain data centres"
Does not compute. You need a sysadmin and some rented rack space. You specifially don't need "a data center". Costs a bit more than rentinge space from a data slurping US center, but it's all yours and GDPR compliant.
There is a large section of the people on Capital Hill (members of the House of Representatives and Senate) that believe that we are all raging commies. With our single-payer healthcare, state pensions and all the rest...
Many are also raging anti-LGBTQ+, anti-Semites, and non-believers in Science.
Do we want to be beholden to them in any way? Perhaps once we did but no longer. The influence that the USA once had is getting less and less every year.
@Steve Davies 3
Yes it's like the madder part of the USA is getting even madder.
All that was needed was Trump.
The two party system is lethal as it gives the alt right or alt left people no way to go but into the main parties.
In most countries they form their own fringe parties and have limited power.
Same problem in Britain just now.
@Lars
The two party system is lethal as it gives the alt right or alt left people no way to go but into the main parties.
"Same problem in Britain just now."
Sort of, though anyone vaguely left is rapidly getting purged from Starmer Labour party as it moves increasingly rightwards. Either the greens will benefit from these "homeless" left leaning voters or one of the various very small "leftish" parties might see a membership surge. But UK 2 party system looking more US like (in that both US parties right wing* , just that republicans are more right wing)
* I'm using Northern European (excluding UK) concept of right / left wing in describing the parties: Much UK media, tends to be quite US like in left / right usage, often regarding what would be Scandinavian centre / centre left policies as "far left"
This post has been deleted by its author
> The US doesn't like the EU
The US does very much like the EU. To the extent that it was their idea.
It gives them access to one big single market as opposed to lots of small ones.
The problem with the EU these days is the particularly docile and incompetent leadership (the Commission is the EU's executive arm). This reminds me heavily of the sockpuppet "leaders" in communist satellite countries in Eastern Europe back in the day. It seemed that the ideal qualification was to be as thick and obedient as possible.
Sadly that is exactly what we're seeing these days vis a vis the US. Just look at the "president" of the Commission the other day shaking hands with the American guy and announcing that there was nothing to worry about, we have another agreement in place to get data transfers going again… she doesn't even have the power to negotiate or approve such an agreement, much less an illegal one, since the problem is not one of EU law but one of US lack thereof, as NOYB pointed out.
the particularly docile and incompetent leadership
That's only because their daily stagger from sponsored breakfast to lunch and then dinner with lobbyists in a drunken haze. I was at the EU buildings in Brussel when there was talk about annulling Safe Harbor and you couldn't move for the number of lobbyists there.
It almost felt like a Microsoft presentation to a big customer - it had about the same feel of disconnection with the real world.
> I was at the EU buildings in Brussel when there was talk about annulling Safe Harbor and you couldn't move for the number of lobbyists there.
Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I do think lobbying has its place and I'm not going to blame the companies too much for looking after their interests.
But the silly, lazy sods at the EP with their small armies of assistants should understand that there is also a need to get out there and be in touch with their constituents, as well as to listen to the opposite point of view, by seeking them out if necessary if they won't come to you. Instead, the only way to get in touch with (most of) them is to know someone who knows one of their assistants and take it from there.
Come on, it's their full time, five figure salary job. We're not talking the Swiss federal assembly part timers here.
As for the Commission, it's nothing but a self-serving propaganda machine.
"Respect has to be earned. The old EEC had some respect, but these days the EU is more likely to provoke tolerant laughter than respect."
How much earning does the US need to do? How much tolerant laughter is it likely to provoke these days?
Glasshouses... Stones...
or "the EU is sick of the US applying their rules to the world - like forcing a company to send their data held in another jurisdiction (in the EU) to the US just because some TLA wants it, without proper oversight (like a warrant) or using the existing and proven methods (when you investigate a crime you can ask other countries to help), and without having proper data protection rules in place".
So, yeah, nah. I hope the politicians do grow a pair of hairy ones and tell them to just fork off. You can come and do business here when you play by our rules. Same thing when EU companies want to do business in the US, right?
This is both true, and pointless. Any system that adheres to some certification will cost more than a similar uncertified system, and this is widely accepted. This is true even when the certification is meaningless, but is much more true when the certification - as is the case here - actually has a meaningful impact on what's going on. In this case, preventing foreign companies from monetizing data on EU citizens in an opaque fashion. It's not that we are unaware that this will lead to increased costs; we know, and we're fine with that.
At the individual level, I myself would be quite fine with a subscription service that guarantees privacy, in lieu of many "free" services that slurp everything they can. This goes ten times more if the data I'm handling is not my own. The fact that such an arrangement is typically not even an option is deeply problematic, and the market has had 10+ years to fix this problem, and hasn't. Regulation seems appropriate in this case.
I myself would be quite fine with a subscription service that guarantees privacy, in lieu of many "free" services that slurp everything they can.
I take the free ones, and lie about the personal information I supposedly give them...
"These EUCS requirements are seemingly designed to ensure that non-EU suppliers cannot access the EU market on an equal footing, thereby preventing European industries and governments from fully benefiting from the offerings of these global suppliers,"
That's a curious statement, as it implies that EU industries and governments are somehow 'losing out' from excluding non-EU suppliers, while actually it is a benefit for them. As many people have repeatedly pointed out, "cloud" just means someone else's computer somewhere else. The EU is large enough that the "somewhere else" can be safely in some other part of the EU that respects EU data privacy and rules. If the "someone else" isn't willing to play by EU rules, fine, go sell your cloud services to people who don't mind all their data being subject to the whims of the US government. Or lobby your government to repeal the laws that make any US company's data subject to US government search even if the data is physically held outside the US.
Actually - no. I would say that those companies that buy / rent / license cloudy stuff do benefit from lower prices (though they might be in breach of GDPR, as there is de facto no aequivalency concering data protection). The European cloud providers would benefit (probably), though they are themselves mostly resellers of AWS or whatever.
The US regards data localism as a form of data protectionism, with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation making the argument that data localism is a covert form of authoritarianism to facilitate domestic surveillance (conveniently forgetting that many data localisation initiatives were driven by Snowden’s revelations about US surveillance of its own citizens in the first place). The US, through its co-option of GAIA-X, opposition to GDPR, the ENISA initiative and many others is fundamentally opposed to Europe achieving any form of digital autonomy or sovereignty. Who cares if the US is inconvenienced and put out of pocket by EU cloud users wishing to keep their workloads in the EU? The EU has the will to grow its own autonomous, sovereign digital capability - and the UK would do well to take heed.
Yes, it is their job. But for an American probusiness organisation to suggest that actually Johnny foreigner shouldn't do something to protect their businesses against overseas competition because an American global monopoly would be good for American business (whom absent of competition wouldn't screw their customers over in a heartbeat) is a remarkably tone deaf and counter productive argument to make.
-- Who cares if the US is inconvenienced and put out of pocket by EU cloud users wishing to keep their workloads in the EU? --
Possibly the people who use the service and their customers as prices go up due to lack of competition and increased legislation.
Surely, if the requirement becomes for data to be homed in the EU and be GDPR compliant, the answer would be for these cloud providers to find European partners to license their technology to? They still get income from those sales, it still all ends up via their system but they have no direct control over the data or ownership of the partner companies...
Would that not offer a level playing field?
> if the requirement becomes for data to be homed in the EU and be GDPR compliant, the answer would be for these cloud providers to find European partners to license their technology to?
Actually the requirement is already here, has been for many years AFAIK: GDPR has to be respected, already.
On the other hand, nobody prevents you from having a local EU data center (no partner needed), and as long as you respect GDPR, you're fine. Ah, yes, one little drawback, you can't make money selling those EU informations, and you might even have to actually pay taxes... OMG! I can see why this is a deal breaker and why the various online giants prefer posturing, pouting, and shaking their fists.
What the rules say, and their enforcement are entirely separate things.
The US Cloud Act effectively makes dealing with US tech companies to process EU personal data, illegal. Yet they're all still in wide-use, because they lurch from each court case to the next, coming up with new attempts to make it compatible, even though it is impossible without a change in US federal law. Allowing them to kick the can down the road in perpetuity.
In this case, though, it is not a legal issue specifically - but a certification issue. If they want to get business from orgs looking for that certification, then they would need to comply regardless of the law and their court cases.
If the datacenter is managed by an entity that is a subsidiary of an US entity, then the data is accessible to US services according to the CLOUD Act.
And you won't be aware of when a US competitor will get access to your data using that Act and the best relations with government officials that money can buy.
"nobody prevents you from having a local EU data center (no partner needed), and as long as you respect GDPR, you're fine"
False, you specifially can't do that as US CLOUD act prevents it. Every US corporation is bound to it and then they can't respect GDPR.
This post has been deleted by its author
@mpi
"...thus kickstarting a domestic cloud industry"
That wouldnt be able to compete with the outside world. Either more expensive, less capable, worse service, etc.
"creating god-knows-how-many jobs"
Who could be doing other things that are productive. Maybe on a more competitive CLOUD provider.
Why do you think nobody at all could ever compete with a US company?
Maybe you should give up trying to do whatever it is you do because someone in the US is doing it far better than you, and it doesn't matter how hard you work, they will always be better at it, and codejunky will always be a failure on their own terms.
That seems an odd position to take.
@Richard 12
"Why do you think nobody at all could ever compete with a US company?"
Where did I say that? You seem to be reading something opposite to what I said. By isolating from competition there is no reason to be competitive with those excluded from competition. Open up to competition and then you get competition.
I certainly think companies can compete with US companies. However, AWS has 15+ (20+?) years head start. Even the other US cloud providers have inferior products. It would take a *MASSIVE* infusion of money for an EU provider to offer a service comparable to AWS.
"That wouldnt be able to compete with the outside world. "
Easily and trivially. Just make the data not accessible to US government agencies *and* GDPR compliant.
None of the US companies can do either of those, despite technically trivial. And you talk about not being able to compete?
Have you any idea that US corporations can't even fill EU *legal requirements*? Even less compete with anyone.
@AC
"Easily and trivially. Just make the data not accessible to US government agencies *and* GDPR compliant."
This would be an interesting approach that the EU doesnt seem to suggest. Why not have a competitor that will keep the EU data in the EU and make that their selling point. It would be interesting to see how much premium people put on that kind of service, it could be worth it.
First a group of nations all had kings and those kings made, a few, so uneasy that they decided going to an area of the world that had nothing, but, was better than staying where they were. So, you have the Big E and the New E.
The New E finally got tired of taxes without any say in being taxed, and so, made a big enough stink that Beg E was ready to say GOOD BY!!
Now New E builds a mostly pure Capitalist system, and watches as Big E turns into a Socialistic group. They also see most of the rest of the world turn into a Communistic pool of despair.
So New E, being a group that cannot eat without working as hard as they can, DOES. They get rich with new money and try that Socialistic path. But inertia keeps things going for a while. During this time many things are invented. And ideas are passed back and forth between nations. We come to a point where everyone in Big E and New E has reason to believe that their ideas are the ones that made this great product that allows an individual to put all of their data in a space that they do not control and where anyone strong enough can get a good look. The People of New E and Big E start to see that there is money in that huge pile of information. The problem is that he who has it is in charge of it, and the ULA for using the Great Products says so. Everyone calls fowl, and that nobody really reads those ULA things anyway. The guys with the data say will you had to sign it to use the GREAT PRODUCT!! And the People say but you wrote it in such a way that was boring to read and we did not understand it.
So the owners of the data said "Well it is ours now. We were the ones that took the time to make the infrastructure. We were the ones that took all of the risk. We did not twist any arms to get you to use this GREAT PRODUCT, Why are you mad?
Some of those Communistic countries got mad enough that they just ignored the business norms of the rest of the world and shut their users off from BIG E and New E. Built their own gReAt pRoDuCtS and forced their people to use them, and so that their government can see, regulate and punish their people for what they say.
A few years go by and Big E says hey,"You guys over there are making a lot of money over there and you guys are not funding us like you used to, and you guys are not paying any taxes over here for the money you make on the information of our people." Then lickity split Big E starts to make a fuss over technical issues in how the GREAT PRODUCT is being run or used, I mean making money without any input from Big E. The Big E government not having their way with the information.
Where this story goes from here will be a fascinating story to read. "How New E turned the tables on Big E" Yes I believe it will make for a great story.
Per a couple of summaries of the US Cloud Act, it (this quote from Wikipedia) "provides mechanisms for the companies or the courts to reject or challenge these if they believe the request violates the privacy rights of the foreign country the data is stored in". So, it should be compatible with GDPR provided the cloud providers agree that any request about EU citizens is a violation (and will refuse to honor).
"These EUCS requirements are seemingly designed to ensure that non-EU suppliers cannot access the EU market on an equal footing, thereby preventing European industries and governments from fully benefiting from the offerings of these global suppliers,"
You don't get to access the EU market on equal footing if you can't comply with EU regulations. In fact, yes, you can't access the EU market on equal footing if you're outside the EU. That's the whole point of the EU. It operates as a bloc. Do non-US suppliers get access to the US market on an equal footing? Just asking the question induces laughter.
Here's how I see it. Get serious about data privacy. Stop spying on YOUR OWN CITIZENS, let alone foreign nationals, on the inbound side of transatlantic cables. Then maybe there can be real assurances about a safe harbour. Then we'll talk.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
