Patriot Act vs. the EU's Data Protection Directive 239
itwbennett writes "Last week, Microsoft warned that under the Patriot Act the company may be compelled to hand over European customers' data on its new cloud service to U.S. authorities — and also to keep the data transfer secret. This, of course, runs counter to the European Data Protection Directive, which states that organizations must inform users when they disclose personal information. 'Microsoft can already transfer E.U. data to the U.S. under the Safe Harbor agreement. But legal experts have warned that this agreement is hardly worth the paper it's written on,' writes IDG News Service's Jennifer Baker. 'There are seven principles of Safe Harbor, including reasonable data security, and clearly defined and effective enforcement. However all this is nullified if the Patriot Act is invoked.'"
Down with the patriot act! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Down with the patriot act! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Constitution has undergone gleischaltung. It was necessary to protect the United States from its enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
And then we elected those enemies to Congress...
Re: (Score:3)
It's citizens are it's enemy? I guess that does explain a lot.
Re:Down with the patriot act! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Down with the patriot act! (Score:4, Insightful)
That is by far not the most concerning part about the Patriot Act at all. Law enforcement was always seeking ways to obtain data. In every country. Nothing new. For most of them, they are a bit zealous but probably want to protect you. Meaning, the small guys. They are not the brightest bunch and have a hard time seeing the big picture but they are risking their lives daily to protect yours.
The REAL CONCERNING part about the Patriot Act is the SILENCE BY FORCE.
When you can't speak about what they are doing out of fear of being incarcerated, we no longer live in the United States of America.
So what really happened nearly 10 years ago was the United States Of America died. Its soul was stripped, its people were robbed, and we are still reeling in a deluded and dazed confusion arguing about meaningless shit (immigration, gay people wanting rights, and Obama's fucking birth certificate) without confronting the truth that a law exists that makes it illegal for you to talk about actions that need to be talked about.
When you are a business owner that is being raided by the government for all of your customers information indiscriminately without warrants or just cause and you cannot even warn your customers that their rights are being violated and should be offered the chance to face and defend themselves against their accusers and those that abridged their rights, we all need to seriously consider just what country we live in, is it really free, and have thrown the baby with the bath water out when it comes to protecting Freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
It is better for a hundred guilty people go free than a single innocent person be wrongly convicted.
Too few people believe in this principle for there to yet be an effective resistance against the PATRIOT act.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the remove of judicial involvement is the entire reason the PATRIOT act is both problematic and unconstitutional.
Very few sane people really object to the government being able to tap your phone or search your house or examine your library records or any of those sorts of things. The constitution has no problem with them doing that. The issue is with letting them do that WITHOUT A WARRANT.
Judicial oversight was put in place for a reason and only the most dire and immediate of circumstances should ove
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's the Patriot Act. Clearly only a terrorist would want to get rid of something called the Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Down with retaining customer data instead!
What doesn't exist cannot be stolen. :)
Good luck getting anything useful from my distro downloads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are under a misapprehension of what a socialist would do. Socialists aren't that keen on individual rights against the government. Quite the opposite. Sure, they may support some rights for people than a conservative or classical liberal might not, but those "rights" are actually entitlements and safety nets. Many socialist countries have very effective central government with significant powers in certain cases to do things that would make an American start to froth at the mouth. Things like actua
Re: (Score:3)
Well said. The powers we give the government keep getting expanded in spite of our protests to the contrary (our, meaning the voters). We have given the enumerated powers, but with those powers, our vigilance has been lax, and the government, corrupt as it is, continues to grasp for more power. The resolution is to challenge it in the courts. The problem is, that takes money, and the vested interests (those who like to restrict liberty... that includes the *AA's) will not take up the cause because it is not
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's particularly nefarious (Bond-villain style), but the people at the top sure do know how to hold onto power.
Dude, Obama is a Republican, not a socialist (Score:2, Informative)
Dude, Obama is a Republican, not a socialist. Let's see: ...
1) Obama caves in to EVERY demand of the Republican party.
2) His healthcare reform is basically Romneycare.
3) Obama continues Bush's policies on torture and covering up government crimes.
If Obama were a socialist, you'd have a single-payer healthcare system right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialists aren't that keen on individual rights against the government.
Actually, yes, they are. They just happen to disagree with you on what the set of "fundamental" individual rights should consist of.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the president signing the bill isn't necessary for it to become law. He can just let it set on his desk for 10 or so days and it becomes law automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Congress did one thing right with it, and put sunset provisions into it so it comes up to be exposed to light and oxygen periodically.
And since then the leadership (from both major parties) has repeatedly shut down any attempt by Congressmen who are concerned about the more draconian provisions of it to actually debate any of it on the floor. Like the original PATRIOT ACT, the renewals have occurred quickly, with only a minority of legislators giving it any kind of real thought.
Sunset provisions are more often than not a way of making a bill seem less risky or stupid than it really is. For instance, the Bush tax cuts were portrayed as muc
Re: (Score:2)
Onoes! (Score:2)
Don't put data in clouds (Score:2)
It will end in tears.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is in the rain.
I have a feeling that things will be very interesting for the Next generation
"The Terrorists" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "Terrorists" please.
I know of a group of people that took down a building and killed a few thousand people and bombed a bunch of embassies.
I also know of a group of people responsible for death of millions, the waste of trillions, and wiped their asses with the US Constitution.
Please define who a terrorist is again please?
Honestly - why do business in the U.S. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm someone interested in releasing my software.
I've worked on this software for about 1 year my time, and done things I think are "research" in their newness.
Releasing any software in the U.S. is basically opening me up to a multitude of unfounded lawsuits and I become a target for corporate espionage - why do I bother.
As a euro developer - I must confess that the U.S. is looking less and less interesting as a revenue source.
All the "steal people's data" and the "we control domains" - why on earth would I think about building a business in this piranha pool?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's conservative propaganda to make people demand the tax breaks that are the only constant in conservative policies around the globe (even GREEK conservatives demand tax cuts!).
Re: (Score:2)
As for constant the Conservatives are heading a coalition gover
Re: (Score:3)
More specifically Greece's problems have come about because their citizens behave like spoiled, entitled, children:
1. Average salary on the Greek railways *including cleaners* is $90,0000 a year.
2. 600 'professions' can retire at 50 with a pension -paid for by the state- of 95% of their final salary. Why? Because these professions are stressful and dangerous. What's an example of one of these 600 professions? Masseuse.
3. And now the Greeks have to pay for their profligacy they're on the streets attacking th
Re: (Score:2)
As taxes go up?
Our taxes are very low, much lower than when the US was the undisputed leader of the software world. Compared to the EU our taxes are still very low. High taxes in the USA is a red herring, businesses move out to exploit slave-wage labor.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought that the EU market is slightly larger than the US. Of course the US has the advantage that you can ship to the entire market in their variant of English, with maybe Spanish thrown in if you are feeling generous, or you are shipping to Spanish speaking countries anyway. Also, India and China are catching up, and are the main growth markets, so if you want to be big in the future, that is where you should be now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Host them in Europe with European companies.
While EU data protection is actually worse than US data protection, you're probably still somewhat better off because suing a European company is probably easier for you than suing a US company.
In different words, it's not the "US gubmint" you should be worried about, it's the French, German, British, Italian, and other European governments, who have really bad records historically.
Wrong. (Score:2)
Wrong.
In the US if a corporation has your data it's now their data and they can do whatever the hell they like with it.
In Europe they have to have permission (possibly implied but explicit if it's 'sensitive' like medical records) to hold and process your data.
They have to register what they plan on doing with the data and tell you when you agree- so they can't suddenly decide they're going to use the information you provided to make a travel booking to start marketing cars. Nor can they suddenly decide the
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. Such a place does not exist. Host your stuff in the EU in a country that will actually resist and fight the US from coming in and taking the data.
The US can still seize your domain and put up that nice intimidating seal that informs all of your users that the US is busy going elbow deep on your ass. All domains fall under the influence of a company that is entirely under the influence of the US government.
The Internet, domains being the foundation, is entirely the property of the US government a
Re: (Score:2)
Sealand. Not sure if they've fully recovered from the fire, though.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, chances are your little server isn't going to have anything of interest to the government. There is always the chance it'll be used by some criminals to secretly communicate without your knowing, but it's unlikely.
Ok lets ask an easier question.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ok lets ask an easier question.... (Score:5, Funny)
Ok lets ask an easier question.... ... Who doesn't have access to my personal data ?
You
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes. That reminds of a wonderful night in Las Vegas.
Got so hammered that when I had to pee, and I had to pee bad... I could not gain access to myself. The belt was just too difficult in my current state and the zipper actually broke off in my hand.
I eventually just said fuck it and yanked everything down like a 3 year old (or Butters from South Park) and started pissing away. I saw the other guys looking at me and I calmly and drunkly informed them I was having a "wardrobe malfunction" and to mind you
The summary is wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are specific exceptions for 'National Security' in both the European directive and each country's implementation (eg the Data Protection Act in the UK).
So all the US needs to do is find a shill (the UK government would be my guess at their first choice) who will declare that they need to export 'this' data as a matter of 'National Security' (honest!) and Microsoft and in the clear and the US get what they want.
The summary is !wrong (Score:2)
Microsoft is a U.S. company. Would
Re: (Score:2)
This is not an issue of the US government wanting information and needing a shill to send it to them. It is simply a matter of Microsoft, as a U.S.-based corporation having to turn over information on all its dealings with extra-nationals at the U.S. government's request. Euro privacy law would prohibit some of that and since Microsoft makes use of European systems, this falls under Euro privacy law. It is a horrible mess but the U.S. law will trump the EU law because...
So at the end of the day, if the US decides to use it's power over MS to get information from servers located in Europe, the EU will sue the hell out of MS for knowingly violating privacy laws... Sounds like a loose/loose situation for MS :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So at the end of the day, if the US decides to use it's power over MS to get information from servers located in Europe, the EU will sue the hell out of MS for knowingly violating privacy laws... Sounds like a loose/loose situation for MS :)
More like a tight/tight situation. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the US would is the EU had produced any products that were used to the same extent as Microsoft's products. Though if that had been the case I strongly suspect the balance of power would already be very different than it is right now. Granted a large part of the reason is likely due to the fact that the EU countries spent decades worrying about the US and Soviets shitting all over the continent instead of working on technology and invention...
The EU is more than welcome to provide their own solu
Re: (Score:2)
Actually one of my uncles and I do my grandmother's due diligence when it comes to her computer and technology issues. I can still appreciate that Microsoft is being up front with a potential issue instead of pretending to ignore it until things come to a head and someone is crying because they were violated and weren't told it would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's their choice. If they want to operate in two countries, whose laws contradict then they have to accept the consequences.
Just like companies that want to work on both Iranian nuclear projects and in the US are going to have problems.
WTF? (Score:2)
Hard to imagine people still cling to the idea that we must give up our freedoms to protect us from the people who hate us for our freedoms.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
There was this brief period during the fallout from the Enlightenment when great men believed that liberty was worth the additional dangers it might add. But, in general, people are too dull and too easily frightened to understand that. They're too easily overawed, too easily swayed by emotional appeals, and lacking in sufficient ability to evaluate statements such as "We're increasing surveillance to maintain your freedoms" and realize that the two notions are diametrically opposed.
Re: (Score:2)
What a strange position, since atheists and agnostics tend to be far more pro-liberty than your average theist. But hey, blaming non-believers for the failure of a nation overwhelmingly Christian with politicians who invoke God with obscene regularity to show their piety probably makes sense to you.
To me, however, it looks like you're just a bigoted piece of rat shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really weird. Many people, who accept, that there are no inalienable right, just arbitary rules, actually consider these rules a genuinely good idea and are willingly following them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what IS a natural right? If you recognize something as such and someone else goes and uses force to trample all over your rights, where does that leave you? A right is only one when you are able to exercise it and as a society we formed a state to ensure that we can exercise our rights. What these rights are is an agreement within the society and differs between societies (e.g in the EU we consider life a basic right and the death penalty is a violation of that right, in the US the death penalty is in
Re: (Score:2)
Natural rights arise from the evolutionary biology of the human brain which defines human social structures.
There isn't any need to adopt silly hypothesis like Gods etc. to justify their existence.
Re: (Score:2)
All rules are arbitrary. The only constant in all of human history, much of it dominated by some form of theistic belief, is that there are rules. The precise nature of those rules, other than that they follow the dominance hierarchy model present in other great apes as well, changes over time. What John Locke (who is the real founding father in all of this anyways) put forward was an argument for a secular society where people of different beliefs and traditions could live together in peace. Yes, the F
Re: (Score:2)
[...]where he makes the case that, in the absence of a deity, no one has an inalienable right to anything. It's all arbitrary rules made up by society.
...and in the presence of a catholic deity, you have the (Spanish) Inquisition - you didn't expect them, did you? And in certain countries, as we all know, religion prescribes beheading or stoning under certain conditions that we might find unreasonable. The point is that religion only entitles you to what that particular religion believes to be reasonable - even when that's something as silly as trial by ordeal.
Of course they are all arbitrary rules made up by society. That's the point. We, the inhabitants
Re: (Score:2)
Within Christendom morals have varied widely in time and place. At one time, the notion of a lawful order from King to Peasant was seen as a perfectly moral society, the idea that each rung on the feudal ladder should have any particular equal footing was not identified.
Heck, in the United States, or at least a fair fraction of it, belief in the natural superiority of white man over black man was seen not only as a sound moral precept, but was even given a theological underpinning.
Morals change over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the argument someone who is being well served by the current hierarchy would make; actually it sounds down right like the Neo-Communist Chinese government.
As a parent poster pointed out if you don't hold their is a higher power than man, then you have only two real choices. Everyman is completely sovereign unless and until he can be conquered and subjugated by others. You have anarchy. The other option is really to hold that because there is no higher power than man the collective judgment of
Re: (Score:2)
Ah my, the useful lie and the false dichotomy of atheism rolled into one.
All men are equal can be a philosophical position just as much as a theological one, and has the advantage of not ultimately amounting to "God says so."
And yes, I'll remind you religion, even Christianity, has hardly been a protector of liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
please don't insult the rats.
Re: (Score:2)
The Founding Fathers believed that liberty was paramount because God endowed men with natural rights. Now that the existence of a deity is not taken for granted (and is in fact expressly rejected by many on this site), the only defensible political system seems to be some form of utilitarianism: you can have only so much freedom as others are willing to allow you in their pursuit of what they believe is the common good.
Many atheists believe in natural rights. Haven't you noticed how many libertarians and objectivists are atheists?
Personally, I think the concept of natural rights is metaphysical, but apparently, many atheists are able to reconcile it with their world-view.
Re: (Score:2)
News at 11 (Score:4, Interesting)
The USA is screwing the only friends they have left over (again)...
So whats the news again?
News at 11:01 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry... who are you talking about? Europeans are supposed to be "the only friends" of the US? The always-whining always-complaining Europeans? I don't think so.
And let's see what you are actually complaining about: the US government reserves the right to access data held by US companies in the US. Well, golly, European companies reserve the same right in Europe, but without many of the niceties and legal protections that exist in the US.
The real difference is that few Americans actually have data o
Re: (Score:2)
A British company has moral, ethical and legal obligations to protect its customers' data. Exposing that data to the US by hosting on a server in the EU would be negligent, yet is the situation that Microsoft have admitted anybody using their service could find themselves in.
Throw in the almost certain misuse of secret corporate data for industrial espionage purposes (and don't even pretend the US Government don't play there) and there's a very compelling case to use EU only cloud providers (or host in-hous
Re: (Score:2)
So do US companies, that's not the issue. The US government can legally get at that data under some circumstances, just like the UK government can get at data at UK companies under some circumstances.
That's your opinion. What matters i
Re: (Score:2)
To put it bluntly (yet in a work-safe parlance), the UK gets the shaft in the wrong'un, and we get to agree to outrageous demand to extradite british nationals on flimsy "evidence" to a country which incarceration is big business in return.
The risk of doing business with US companies (Score:2)
You know, every time I see a story about some business "gone wrong" due to involvement with China, I usually hold my tongue because what I want to say is that doing business with US based companies can be every bit as problematic as doing business with a Chinese company. And the problem doesn't start or end with the PATRIOT act. It goes on and on and on due to all sorts of problems such as software patents, the DMCA and more.
Things that are legal in other countries are illegal here and will get you screwe
Oh for fuck's sake (Score:2)
Can we just overthrow our fucking peeping-tom government already and put up something suitably less needy, greedy and pervy in its place? The government needs to go back to the point of being TOO FUCKING AFRAID of pissing off its populace to entertain shit like this.
I figure a little violent revolution with a few thousand politicoes executed publicly and messily ought to give us another 1-200-ish years of peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for goodness sake.
Source for following statements [gallup.com]
A recent gallup poll shows 54% of people who claim to be "very familiar with the patriot act" are either satisfied with it, or want it to go further. 65% of people "somewhat familiar" with it have the same opinion, and 62% of people not familiar with it have that opinion.
In all, 62% of americans do NOT think it has gone too far.
Regardless of whether or not you think the patriot act goes too far, calling for a revolution because you disagree with the major
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good idea on paper, but the corporations will just buy a new load of politicos. You'll get no more than a decade or two out of it.
Buying a house under the patriot act (Score:5, Insightful)
I learned a bit about the Patriot Act when buying a house. Prior to the Patriot Act you had to disclose sufficient financial information to the bank for them to take the risk of the loan. You had to prove you had the down payment, provide a credit report, and appraise the house. But they didn't really care where or how you got the money. But under the Patriot Act you have to provide an audit trail for all of your assets. For example, you must show where you got your down payment from and where it was for the past 6 months, etc. In my case I sold stocks so I had to show tons of statements prove that the money really came from those stocks, not some other place.
It was fairly creepy. I felt like I was depositing money in a bank and the government required proof that I didn't get the money by selling drugs. It really slowed things down and complicated it. I used to watch TV shows where the police had ridiculous access to people's information, but I see now how that is happening. I can imagine a time when the government can track every dollar - where it goes and where it came from.
and that's different from the EU... how? (Score:2)
EU countries also have the ability to access pretty much everything they like in the interest of national security. Some European nations even allow government access to data for police work without a court order. And they don't ask questions whether the data involved comes from Europeans or US citizens.
So I really don't see what the fuss is about. The only reason this matters more in the EU->US direction is because there are a lot more US companies that EU citizens like to use than the other way arou
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's up to the European companies to make it the American companies' problem by no longer using their products them.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the German data protection laws and regulations: they have explicit exemptions for national security and police work; often, a justification from the executive branch is sufficient (no court order). I trust you are at least capable of Googling this yourself?
Re:Of course you realize, (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is probably exactly what will happen. Remember the SWIFT treaty, about transferring bank transaction data from the EU to the US? The European parliament rejected it because of privacy concerns. Then, after a few months of arm-twisting from national governments and visits by Joe Biden among others, the Commission presented a new treaty with some cosmetic changes which was passed in the parliament with a large majority.
EUs stricter privacy laws are there in spite of its politicians, not because of them,
Re: (Score:2)
It means that US companies can't operate in this market in the EU. Do you think the EU government is going to have a problem with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that old canard of the "US bullying Europe". Is Europe some impotent banana republic? Of course not. Europe has nearly twice as many people and a bigger economy than the US. How exactly do you think the US is forcing Europe to do anything European governments don't want to do? By what magical means is this "bullying" supposed to happen?
If European governments enter treaties with the US that Europeans don't like, there are only two explanations: (1) Europe's diplomats and politicians are totally i
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Wikileaks cables showed how the USA has a plan to systematically push their copyright and patent legislation onto other nations (if it wasn't clear already). They've requested and received legislative changes in European countries, among others.
I'm not sure why European politicians are leaning over backwards for the USA. Part of the reason may be that USA has such a large military, they're helping to protect Europe too. Part of the reason may be the USA is simply better and have more experienc
Re: (Score:2)
Your point being? The US is a sovereign nation. Of course, it is going to have strategies for defending its interests. Do you seriously think European governments don't have their own strategies? That's not "bullying", that's called "negotiations" and "diplomacy".
Bully (Score:4, Informative)
t2t10 fantasises that "While European nations were busy raping and pillaging across the globe, American was mostly farming and building up an industrial base."
Really? So the US wasn't busy wiping out the indigenous populations by both direct military means but also using biological weapons (blankets infected with small pox)?
They weren't making unprovoked attacks on other nations: Britain (War of 1812), Spain (repeatedly) and Mexico. If we'd applied the same standards to the US then as was applied to Germany after WW2 your leaders would have been hanged as well for carrying out wars of aggression.
The US fought a civil war because so many of you thought it was the moral and ethical thing to do to keep millions of other human beings enslaved in order to maintain their life-style.
And of course you were also busy discriminating against your own citizens, quite legally, until the middle of the 20th. And still are but not with quite the same degree of overt legal sanction- what proportion of the prison population in your country is black? How much more likely is a black-man to be executed for a crime compared to a white-man who commits the same crime?.
I think you're looking at your country's history through rose tinted glasses. The US has, through out it's history, been an opportunistic bully.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily.
IANAL, but AIUI you're perfectly allowed to transfer data outside the EU provided you take "reasonable steps" to ensure it remains secure. The Safe Harbor scheme essentially boils this down to a simple question for EU companies to ask US providers: "Are you registered under the Safe Harbor scheme?". The Patriot Act may throw a spanner in the works, but I'm not sure it's as much of a problem as it's being made out.
Re: (Score:2)
The Safe Harbor scheme essentially boils this down to a simple question for EU companies to ask US providers: "Are you registered under the Safe Harbor scheme?". The Patriot Act may throw a spanner in the works, but I'm not sure it's as much of a problem as it's being made out.
The thing is to be registered a company needs to comply with the seven safe harbour principles [lawdit.co.uk]. If they cannot (which the patriot act will not allow) they cannot register. If they cease to comply they are no longer registered. If you use a company who says that they meet the criteria and are registered but know that they are not then you are liable for a breech in the DPA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reading those things principles and it doesn't look like the Patriot act is complicating anything.
Those principles state unauthorized access. A NSA letter, warrant, or any other access granted by the patriot act would by default be authorized by law in the same way that a UK court warrant would be authorized by law.
Either there is a lot of misconception running around with this, or I'm missing something very important that simply was not listed in those principles.
In fact, after some further examination
Re: (Score:2)
A NSA letter, warrant, or any other access granted by the patriot act would by default be authorized by law in the same way that a UK court warrant would be authorized by law.
I don't think it would, the states discussed in the directive refer to European states.
Re: (Score:2)
Cloud service in USA as servers in USA or a company with servers in EU founded in USA? Big difference.
Obviously any entity that can be compelled to hand over customer data under the Patriot act. I think that it would cover both, but a company with servers in the EU could probably structure itself to avoid this - you know a wholly owned subsidiary in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)