The US is unlikely to ever properly regulate its treasured "big tech".
As the footprint of digital services on our lives keeps increasing the EU must decide what sort of society and economy it really is.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-priv...
The problem was with insufficient safeguards for data requests by the US government -- law enforcement and spy agencies. That's supposedly been addressed by the Biden executive order, but we'll see if the CJEU actually buys that argument.
They do know that (excepting special circumstances like insufficient justification) an EO can usually be overturned with minimal oversight by the next administration, right?
Like, the Commission are really unlikely to revoke this even if (for example) DJ Trump returns and revokes this order.
The Court almost certainly would, but that would take time.
So my layman believe is that they don't need a treaty, since it will probably be overturned anyway.
Especially because it's going to be absolutely meaningless. Administration opinion since Bush, Jr. has been that no foreigner has any rights an American is bound to respect, unless they're on American soil, which requires a handful of courtesies. They can announce this policy with all pomp and circumstance and on the same day have the Attorney General write a secret brief explaining his theory that it doesn't bind the government in any way, which becomes secret law.
Royal pronouncements and secret laws. What a democracy.
-----
edit: they literally dragged out Eric Holder the other day to complain that a court order barring intelligence agencies from backchannel communications with social networks was going to cause terrorist attacks and child molestation. The guy who coined "too big to fail" but wasn't saying it sarcastically, and who admitted that his legal opinion on due process in the case of the assassination without trial of American citizens was that whatever process they used to decide what they would do was "due process."
And that's what the outcome here is: data can be transferred to US companies which legally binding commit to comply with GDPR.
What was all the back and force about was that due to various US laws suing parties argued that US companies can not comply with GDPR even if they legaly binding commit to do so. Various courts ruled that that is indeed true.
Now again regulator have found another way to argue "it's legal like intended" which required some concessions from the US.
We will see if that way, like some previously ways, will be shut down by courts.
It already made that decision in the first half of the 20th century. If you haven't heard, it decided to be a capitalist society. Nothing surprising here.
There are many different kinds of capitalism, some mostly good and some mostly bad, so just saying "it decided to be a capitalist society" lacks sufficient specificity. Also, capitalism is an economic system, so it's leaving out the "sort of society" part.
No, there isn't. There are merely different stages and the order they come in may vary ever so slightly as they affect one another. Over time, capital always accumulates, exploitation of the working class always tends to increase, and the rate of profit always tends to decrease.
This carries the risk of losing the entire EU market, and further, the rise of actual competitors in the EU.
Can't have that. Gotta keep the EU dependent on US tech. Better make sure America retains tech dominance over Europe, and can keep raiding their tech talent with the lure of high compensation and global impact unavailable in the EU.
In all seriousness, the trans-Atlantic tech trade seems like a vaguely mercantilist colonialist system: Raw materials (skilled labor) flow in, finished goods (tech services) flow out.
You obviously have no clue what surveilance means and where it can lead. People like you explain the shambles that is the US political and regulatory system. Allow others to be concerned about having any dependency on it and not making naive assumptions about how it might evolve.