Comment by mananaysiempre | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mananaysiempre | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Time[1] and time[2] again, the CJEU has ruled that the US stance of noncitizens having no standing on privacy issues is incompatible with EU law. Time[3] and time[4] again, the European Commission has negotiated a functionally identical agreement codified in executive orders and declared it “adequate” until the court could decide otherwise. Not even the Congress explicitly giving[5] the US government powers to compel (among others) EU subsidiaries of US multinationals, regardless of what EU law says, has changed the equation. Now there’s been a presidential election in the US that many in the EU are unhappy about. *Shocked Pikachu*

> [French MP Philippe] Latombe criticised the US-EU Data Privacy Framework (DPF) deal, saying it no longer served EU interests due to the US president’s “impulsive” nature.

Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems#Schrems_I

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems#Schrems_II

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Privacy_Shield

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Data_Privacy_Fra...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act

All you need to know is that the EU Commission sues their own data protection commissioner because he ruled that the usage of MS365 in the Commission is illegal. So the EU Commission happily works together with Microsoft: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-365-EU-Commission-tak...

The Irish DPA held secret meetings with Facebook about sharing EU citizens data.

https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-protection/schrems-slams-sl...

The rot runs incredibly deep.

A bit of offtopic but when opening this article in the cookie consent screen I get

> Data processing by advertising providers including personalised advertising with profiling Consent required for free use

How legal is this?

It is considered illegal and is currently under investigation thanks to the wonderful Noyb organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_or_pay (the article even mentions Heise) & https://noyb.eu/en/frequently-asked-questions-about-pay-or-o...

>saying it no longer served EU interests due to the US president’s “impulsive” nature.

I'd say that if whether or not an agreement serves the EU's interests entirely depends on who the US president is, then it's not an agreement that serves the EU's interests.

> Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?

Why do you think that? The agreement was negotiated under certain conditions, it’s not really surprising that a change in circumstances would make it unfit for purpose.

International law is not really a thing so ultimately this kind of debate between nations/supernational bodies where their positions are irreconcilable comes down to raw power.

Does either the US or the EU have any cards to play that will force the other to back down, or not?

If migrating off Microsoft would effectively shut down the government for a period of time they don't really have any choice.

I worked at a tax office a long time ago which used Windows and Java, and it was a horrendous system and experience. We kept losing time every single day due to some issue elsewhere, so we always had to notify IT, which in turn would notify whoever is responsible for these servers in the capital city. They "fixed" it, except the cycle continued. I bet they are still having issues.

> Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?

No. The laws are applied as long as they serve the rulling elite. See GDPR for examples. Or the copyright law for examples at the other end of the pond.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com