The US definitely needs stronger laws here.
Can someone clarify for me why the physical location where data is stored is a big deal? Why does the US need stronger laws here?
This is probably just my inner naive technologist speaking, but I really enjoyed the moment of time during which the internet was a global network of computers that created a virtual space where physical borders were largely irrelevant. So it's a bit jarring for me to see people take for granted the idea that borders matter on the internet after all.
Edit: 0x62 has a good explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41357888
I hadn't considered the recursive nature of suppliers.
What can you do if your data is silently copied by third parties and used for other activities? What if I build a ghost profile of you and steal your identity when I have enough data? What if I relay that you have a fancy car to some people who have the means to get that from you while sleeping? What if I craft a good scam by targeting you with your own data?
It's not about data is sent to where, it's about what happens when it arrives to the physical servers, who has access to these files, and what can they do with it.
When I visited the states, I got EZ-Pass spam/scam e-mails for a year, on an e-mail I gave to nobody when I was there. So, these laws matter.
Because the place where data is collected and stored may have different rules around privacy and data protection then the place it is exfiltrated to.
If I give my data to a company in one place that has strict laws on what may be done with that information, I don’t want it escaping to a low-protection jurisdiction where there are no penalties for selling it to the highest bidder for god knows what purpose.
If there was an acceptable worldwide convention on personal data privacy that would solve the problem. Until there is, it matters a lot.
Global network of computers where data ultimately flowed to American mainframes. Countries realize data is a resource / liability / vunerability, and even if most struggle to profit from it, they'd still want sovereign control over it. You only really control things on your soil. Physical location / possession matters for control.
https://incountry.com/blog/data-residency-laws-by-country-ov...
In the case of EU countries (I think its part of gdpr), services that handle personal data need to make sure that that data stays safe. The only way they can do that is to make sure that the data stays in a certain region.
I think that is why op is advocating for stronger laws. Due to lax privacy laws in the US, it's impossible for European companies (and other privacy concerned companies) to host their data in the US, therefore your missing a share of the market
But if you are subcontracting to an agency you need to list them as Subprocessors in your DPA. So subcontracted support staffing companies for example would be required to be listed and explicitly consented to.
This is all assuming you set up the base contractual protections for the data required to export the data at all, which Iber apparently didn’t do here.
> A spokesperson for Uber explains to the NOS that they have also contacted the AP themselves about the ambiguity surrounding the privacy rules. Then, according to Uber, the watchdog didn't say that the company violated the rules.
Which is all fine and dandy but the rule really is that if it’s not clear to you (as a rich and well-lawyered company) that something is permitted, that doesn’t give you the right to then do it.
And yes, the fine really has to be this high: fines can never be just a part of doing business; colouring within the lines has to have the attention of everybody involved, from the shareholders on down.
Sounds like they're going to get condemned again in the future, seeing how these things get knocked down again and again. The EU commission is really dropping the ball there.
So maybe the DPAs will defer to the EC's interpretation of adequacy under the GDPR for this new Framework?
Lots of unknowns though, since Schrems has already announced a challenge to the Framework. The only "safe" option without any uncertainty seems to be architect every system so that data never transits to the US and is also never in the custody of a subsidiary of a US-domiciled corporate parent.
To bad the EC isn't the body that can judge whether that deal is legal, and has been caught repeatedly lying about past deals [1].
> So maybe the DPAs will defer to the EC's interpretation of adequacy under the GDPR for this new Framework?
As before, cases will go to the actual authority on the matter: the CJUE. I personally don't have high hopes for this deal to last.
[1]: https://noyb.eu/en/european-commission-gives-eu-us-data-tran...
If i'm not mistaken, because of this (via[0])
> The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.
It sounds like compliance is only possible* if "the US company doesn't have any influence on the EU data-holding company" which is insane. This might be satisfied if the US company simply licenses their software product (e.g. the Uber backend) to an EU company. But this might not be adequate since chances are updates would be somewhat automated, and thus the US-based Uber might be compelled by the government to ship malware with their update to catch some US criminal (or otherwise enact some US spying).
* edit: only possible in lieu of a data agreement like Privacy Shield or its successor as mentioned above
0: top comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33561222
The goalposts on this move every 6 months, so the fines are easy money for the EU.
The companies are just collateral damage. For some reason HN is full of people who don’t actually understand this issue but feel very emotionally passionate that all US tech companies are evil and doing this on purpose.
“Just follow the law, you evil companies!”
Lol. They would if there was a clear law/process to follow that didn’t get shot down every few months.
As it stands, you cannot operate in the EU as a US company if you want to be totally immune from fines.
I urge you to talk to your government representatives (on both sides of the pond) if you care about this issue. This benefits nobody except for EU government coffers.
It seems the dutch regulator is saying "why don't you just go away?". The feeling is likely mutual.
> Although the fine comes from the Dutch regulator, the investigation began in France. In June 2020, 21 Uber drivers there stepped forward to human rights organization Ligue Des Droits De L'homme Et Du Citoyen. Another 151 Uber drivers later joined that complaint. The LDH took that complaint back to the CNIL, France's national privacy regulator. The latter forwarded the complaint to the Dutch Personal Data Authority in January 2021 because Uber's European headquarters is in the Netherlands.
> > The appeals process is expected to take some four years and any fines are suspended until all legal recourses have been exhausted, according to the DPA.
fine is suspended. it will take 4 years of appeals :)
> All DPAs in Europe calculate the amount of fines for businesses in the same manner. Those fines amount to a maximum of 4% of the worldwide annual turnover of a business.
Uber is almost invisible there because they continue to blatantly break the law, and even when told to stop, they continue like nothing happened. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/dutch-authorities-raid-uber-off...). This seems to be just another case of the same hubris.
Of course Uber faces pushback when they act like that.
I wonder on what the initial suspicion from the drivers was based.
Personal anecdote:
Many years ago I was involved with a US organization, and then happily forgot about it. Almost 15 years later they started spamming me with emails coming from their head office in Washington.
I asked them to stop. They didn't. I threatened legal action under GDPR and requested deletion, also under GDPR. They said they complied. A year later they started spamming me again. From the same address.
That's how I knew that they never deleted my info and kept it in the US.
The didn't slip, fall, and drop some USB flash drives into the hands of a US data processor...
I doubt it is any sort of negligence, but if it is - it's not "simple".
Even worse when you move between countries and suddenly "Uber Country X" uses your account of "Country Y" to spam notify you about promotions in X. It's weird in a bad way
I thought that that framework was supposed to allow this (as a replacement for the EU–US Privacy Shield framework)? Presumably this wouldn't have been a problem under Privacy Shield (i.e., pre-2020), or am I getting that wrong?
[1]: https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/current/dutch-d...
Basically the framework, like the Shield before, is the Commission trying to show "look, we fixed it".
Sadly, for the previous two times, the ECJ pointed out after the fact that no framework can fix the lack of data privacy law in the US, and that as such, the Shield, just like its predecessor, was not allowing what it claimed to do.
The Framework has not been tested in the ECJ so far, but the US has not significantly altered its laws so...
Obviously this is coming to an end. Every fiefdom wants their cut and their say, to the point where the internet being a global network is obviously becoming inviable. It was fun while it lasted.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/nigerias-consumer-watchdo...
If a company acts in a honorable way, there's nothing to fear and they can easily do business world wide. It's when companies do things that are shady and should've been outlawed from the start that they run into trouble. The main issue here is that the US has the least restrictive laws and allows its citizens' privacy to be grossly invaded, which means these companies now feel like they're being unnecessarily restricted.
If the US had stricter laws, this would be a non-issue and you wouldn't hear anyone about it. It's all very myopic and US-centered to focus on the company's freedom to do as it pleases. What about the users' freedom to live without being spied upon? Free market rules don't apply - the network effects are too big to really say "you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like it". Also it's a transparency issue - it's too hard to tell from the outside how your data will be handled to make an informed decision about what companies to deal with. Especially because all of them treat your data like they own it, as a cash cow.
The Dutch DPA is not accusing Uber of doing anything nefarious. They are mad that Uber, as an American company, can be compelled by the US government to hand over data. Ultimately, their beef is not with US companies, it’s with the US government.
This is all wildly ironic because the EU is constantly trying to spy on their own citizens and undermine encryption. The EU is just upset that the US is able to do it instead of them.
This is just companies being caught in a geopolitical spat between competing powers. The EU keeps moving the goalposts on what constitutes “safe” transfers (we’re on the 5th round of this). So there’s no way for companies to be compliant unless the US government changes its laws. So right now it’s just a lever to extract money from US corporations via never ending fines.
The US government and the EU need to sort this out. Blaming the companies shows a total lack of understanding of the real situation. I get that we all hate big tech now, but there’s literally no way to comply in good faith with these competing EU cash grabs over the shifting specifics of how you can transfer data to US servers.
Why exactly would physical products have to comply with local laws when exported to other countries and not online services? Do you also call it "fiefdom wanting their cut and their say"? Do you disagree with the concept of laws altogether?
I'm not interested in arguing if eliminating free transit of data is a good idea or not; I'm just pointing out the inevitable consequence of the current trends.
>Obviously this is coming to an end. Every fiefdom wants their cut and their say, to the point where the world being a global network is obviously becoming inviable. It was fun while it lasted.
- Some ignorant bloke at the end of the British empire, probably
(The latter followed by lots of pikachu surprise face because they weren't in charge of said continent).
* Not only an Aesop reference, but also an actual claim I've repeatedly encountered
You mean, the epicenter of that global network transformed it into a tool of influence and surveilance? [1] Or maybe that the companies participating in that global network saw interest in walling that global network ? [2] [3] Or maybe that global network is being reshaped by a few dominant actors so much that outside regulation becomes necessary? [4] [5]
No, of course not; it must be local barons trying to scrap a bit of power, not at all a reaction to massive abuses from the industry.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM [2]: https://www.eff.org/fr/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-ope... [3]: https://blockthrough.com/blog/the-walled-gardens-of-the-ad-t... [4]: https://www.theverge.com/c/23998379/google-search-seo-algori... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
What’s freedom? GPL? BSD? Swinging a fist? Not getting hit on the nose?
I'm not sure I like Meta's and the influence of other foreign companies on European culture too. We were more free before them.
US company: siphons data
EU: You can't do that.
HN commenter: Damn these fiefdoms wanting their cut, what has the internet become? I pine for a simpler time, when I could do anything I wanted with data against people's will and nobody could stop me, that truly was the golden age.
People have a right to know where their personal data is going, what is being stored, what it is being used for and should have a mechanism to correct it and delete
The wider challenge is how that is handled in a compliant way with LLMs and generative tools which vendors do not seem to be taking particularly seriously yet
I'm curious as to why people would want to train LLMs on personal identifying information. What's the benefit of an LLM that has a large collection of names, addresses, dates of birth etc.?
That did not prevent the corrupt European Commission to issue a third variant of the Shield to still allow american corporation to send data of EU citizens to the US, despite the Schrems2 ruling.
i guess we’ll hear more about this in 4 years.
I think this substack is good, it makes a pretty clear case that US tech companies may not leave Europe any time soon, but they wield the power in the relationship much more so than the Europeans. Those regulators are overplaying their hands.
If, and that is a big if, American big tech decided to pull back from Europe, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up being a good thing for the local market in anything but the short term.
It’s very hard to compete with them (even in the local US market). Their disappearance from a market as big as the EU would likely spark competition.
Less we also forget that US public sentiment is shifting. If anything, big tech needs to be careful.
The companies are not at fault here. The governments are at fault for dropping the ball on coming to an agreement. We’re on like the 5th round of this. Compliance is impossible.
Until the two governments fix this, US companies cannot operate in the EU without being at risk for pilfering from EU government.
From another blog post:
> I grew up in Europe (mostly Germany, Denmark, Switzerland). I had never even set foot outside the continent until I was 18, when I moved to the United States. I have lived here for 12 years now, with most of that in San Francisco.
You guys can get with the program now, or you can wait for one of those tent camps to abruptly rise up and drag you out of your Plaid Tesla and beat you to death with your own iPhone.
The conclusion that the EU must stop fining American tech businesses does not follow from the evidence presented. I am willing to take them at their word that EU regulators are overly fixated on Meta and Google specifically... except here we are in a thread about Uber.
The principle that fines for bad behavior should be doled out to citizens is noble, but laughable. Is there any precedent for that anywhere in any developed nation state in the last 50 years? I'm not talking about damages in civil suit, I'm talking about proceeds from fines being directly redistributed to citizens.
Overall, I am very happy that, as an American, the EU is stepping up to govern and regulate American businesses, while the US federal government itself continues to extend its decade-long vacation from governing.
Thanks to the CloudAct there is not protection of EU user data no matter the location of the servers.
IANAL, but cloud act purpose is to allow the usa government to ask data from USA-based or USA-related services providers, for offsense/crimes.
It does not allow service providers to do anything else with that data.
I know ASP.NET Core comes with some GDPR-related helpers but it's more interesting to know general best practices and patterns not related to a specific framework.
Since when ingesting the data you knew where it came from and on what timestamp, you also know when to next check for deletion. And since you also know where it came from (the owner), deleting/sending it on request (when applicable - not all data is always required to be deleted) is pretty straightforward. In essence it's like garbage collection for managed languages (like C#) but for your data.
At the end of the day, no matter what you use (existing process, create a new process if you weren't managing your data so far, or use some product), treating data like radio active waste will generally lead to good designs. You only keep what you need for the time that you need it, everything else gets removed.
Just to add that it's stricter than that - you can only keep the data that is required for the purpose that you detailed to the customer. e.g. If you ask for their email address for password validation, then you're not allowed to use that email for other communication unless you explicitly asked for that as well.
Tools like collibra, purview, informatica, ... that know you database, are your best tools at enterprise level.
They will however keep lobbying, support candidates favorable to them etc.
EU (and other governments) should be vigilant all the time. The moment they take it easy a bit, big tech will be back to their usual shenanigans
And no, they won't leave. They will comply in order to have access to the European market.
All the "Uber" rip-offs in Norway are worse than Uber was last time I used it. Not that anyone can afford to use a taxi here anyway unless the government covers the bill, which they do and which is the only thing that keeps taxis employed, I think.
Maybe a pipe dream though. I haven't given it serious thought.
building alternatives takes time and resources. the EU has neither.
a diverse, competitive tech ecosystem with both EU and non-EU players is better than a protectionist approach.
hoping for an exodus of major global players when you’re leapfrogged by both China and the US…
It feels heartless. I wish there was a better system.
That's a category error. Economic and political system don't have morals. Not capitalism, socialism, democracy, autocracy.
Economic and political system should be designed to create incentives where externalities are positive and not negative.
I'm honestly curious (and adding this as a disclaimer to be clear it's not an attack): why would you think there was any shard of imbued morality when the whole point of the system is based on greed?
Clearly the American capitalist strategy is working since all the products you keep regulating are made in the US. I’d welcome Europe to make some alternatives to what the US is providing before you just unilaterally say we’re immoral and wrong, because currently if all the US companies got fed up enough with the regulation and for some reason pulled out of the market it would cripple the digital life you’re used to in Europe.
Revenue has to come from somewhere otherwise a company can’t grow. “Enough revenue to survive” doesn’t incentivize the kind of rapid business development that consistently comes out of the US versus Europe and is just a naive economic worldview. You have to either sell user data, serve ads, or sell the product wholesale or a subscription. Currently the market (including European users) have decided that they’d rather click skip on an ad and have their usage data sold to drive those ads than pay for the product.
clearly:
https://www.flossbachvonstorch-researchinstitute.com/fileadm...
Even though the rules are great, I'm just not sure if it will be good or bad long term for EU.
I would love it if companies from the U.S.A. left the EU. Not solely for the economic boost it would give local competitors (who have all but shut down when U.S.A. companies came), but also because they clash with our culture in negative ways.
And ideas like Uber aren't hard to copy by local companies.
There was even a time where copy cats were an easy way to get rich.
Copy a US company, wait to get bought by that company. That made the Samwer brothers rich.
We can speculate this all we want, but I think it's fair to say with confidence that leaving companies unregulated (or poorly regulated) is bad for everyone in the long term. A slightly different example is the poor enforcement of antitrust laws being one of the reasons we have the tech oligopoly we have today with Apple, Google, Amazon and Meta.
We had app based ride hailing services before Uber and still have them so it can't be that. Surge pricing also has existed before them.
For example, for Uber, lack of it (it took a while to come to some countries) already spawned lots of successful competition.
America loves to pretend that no other data points exist so they can attribute whatever good performance they’ve historically seen to whatever supposed cornerstone of American life is advantageous to make whatever point they want to make.
This is largely a false meme, an urban legend. There is no meaningful privacy difference between Europe and the US.
This is simply a money grab; it won’t move the needle on privacy one bit. You’ll still be surveilled everywhere you go in Europe by the state, the mobile operators, and most of the other apps on your phone.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if the data stays inside the EU or not. Google collects the same data and the US intelligence agencies can compel them to access the data on EU citizens, stored on EU-located Google servers just the same as if it were in Mountain View.
However I would like to say that the Dutch privacy authority actually seems pretty sincere at enforcing privacy legislation. It's just that until recently they were just sending angry letters, and now they've been given power to do more than empty threats.
For abusing its dominant position, the post has only 2 points [0].
Yet, this one has significantly more comments.
The only political aspect is where the company comes from.
Forum members then want to speak up.
If by political you mean "aimed to be effective", then yes it is political. If the fine is too low and these companies make a healthy profit through these practices, they will just take the loss.
