US diplomat threatens 'trade war' over EU privacy measures

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Wolfstan**

I remember a few years ago when the EU broughtin new data protection laws that sites like Adobe would force you give up your data protection rights (if you were from Europe) before you could download their stuff.

http://www.pcr-online.biz//news/read/us-diplomat-threatens-trade-war-over-eu-privacy-measures/030201

A US diplomat has warned of a ‘trade war’ if the EU continues with proposals that would give people the right to demand that companies delete their private data.

According to the Register, John Rodgers, who is an economic officer with the US Foreign Service told a conference in Berlin that “things could really explode” if the proposals are put through.

“We have a right to privacy in our Constitution, but this does not mean a fundamental right to data protection,” said Rodgers.

The law is known as ‘the right to be forgotten’ and, according to the Stanford Law Review, derives from a concept in French law called le droit a l’oubli (the right of oblivion), which guarantees criminals who have served their time the right to object to the publication of their previous crimes.

Current EU laws currently ensure that companies only collect and store data that is necessary for their purposes of serving the customer. However, the new proposals would give people the right to demand that this information is immediately deleted upon request.

The proposed law would be implemented across all 27 member states and would apply to all companies that handle the personal data of EU citizens – including those from the US.

It's interesting that the US will pursue legtimate off shore Casino sites for allowing Americans to use them, but not for our privacy to be protected. You could even say it's ironic that a country that won't give up the right to bare arms, in case the government turns bad, is happy for it's corporate world to exploit this data for financial gain... or is this guy just full of it?

**kronk**

What a tool. As a diplomat, it's his job to speak for us. But his opinion on this topic certainly doesn't represent what the all 350 million of us want. I like that FW asks you permission for cookies when I go there. Everyone should.

**daedalus**

You're making the fallacy of assuming that the goal of the government in any of the cited situations to protect the people.

Offshore casino sites means no taxes, and it means "legitimate" gambling establishments (with lots of influence) in the US are getting food taken out of their mouths.

Data protection laws that actually favor individuals kill business models. The companies with these business models have lots of influence as well.

**Bran Dawri**

daedalus wrote:
You're making the fallacy of assuming that the goal of the government in any of the cited situations to protect the people.

Offshore casino sites means no taxes, and it means "legitimate" gambling establishments (with lots of influence) in the US are getting food taken out of their mouths.

Data protection laws that actually favor individuals kill business models. The companies with these business models have lots of influence as well.

It *should* be its goal.

...

That doesn't mean that it is, though.

**Grey Templar**

Wolfstan wrote:

It's interesting that the US will pursue legtimate off shore Casino sites for allowing Americans to use them, but not for our privacy to be protected. You could even say it's ironic that a country that won't give up the right to bare arms, in case the government turns bad, is happy for it's corporate world to exploit this data for financial gain... or is this guy just full of it?

Well, the corporation and data privacy can certaintly make your life hell, but we'd rather have our identity stolen or be bombarded with junk mail than have a Tyranical government. Lesser of two evils you know. They arn't comperable issues.

**Wolfstan**

Sorry, I know the comparison was a bit over the top, but the point is that's it's ok for US companies to exploit our data and in fact ignore the EU directive. However legitmate off shore Casinos can be hounded by the US and in fact arrest their owners if they step into US juristiction, which happened to be a British businessman.

You also have a Caribbean island, who have won a WTF case against the US over this, setting up an online piracy torrent site so they can make money that way. All the EU are saying is if someone asks you to delete their details you have to do it. How many will actually remember that they can do this in any case?

**Grey Templar**

I don't agree with the deal, you should be able to ask for your records to be deleted IMO.

Of course, the fact still remains that even if the data is deleted its still there and accessable to somethat knows how. As Boromir said, "One does not simply take something 'off' the internet"

**Steve steveson**

The reason they are pissed is because the CIA don't like the current EU data laws. They don't like that at the moment they can't just go to any company with an EU and a US office, like the FBI can with US citizens, and say "give us your data". This will mean that even with a court order they may not be able to get it.

The US government is very protectionist, however I can't see a trade war really happening for two reasons, first the US are in enough trouble with the WTO as it is and second, the EU is to big a customer to piss off over something like this. It's just grandstanding.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:

It's interesting that the US will pursue legtimate off shore Casino sites for allowing Americans to use them, but not for our privacy to be protected. You could even say it's ironic that a country that won't give up the right to bare arms, in case the government turns bad, is happy for it's corporate world to exploit this data for financial gain... or is this guy just full of it?

Well, the corporation and data privacy can certaintly make your life hell, but we'd rather have our identity stolen or be bombarded with junk mail than have a Tyranical government. Lesser of two evils you know. They arn't comperable issues.

If you have your identity stolen, then that means you can have your home repossessed, bankruptcy declared, your bank accounts emptied and be on the hook for more debt than you've got stored in shoeboxes under your bed. You can easily end up homeless with nothing. Nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep, and you will not be eligible for any kind of relief services.

So tell me how that would put you in a better position than a "tyrannical" government.

**LordofHats**

Maybe I'm just a little crazy, but in the words of a guy who worked for Sun Microsystems: "You have no privacy, get over it."

This is the internet. You will have no more privacy on it than you would walking down a street. More so, the information that a website collects from people is meaningless to the point that to be concerned over it is paranoid. Oh no, they know that a person from Somewhere, Someplace (you) and you looked at a webpage about kitten eating a cheeseburger.

Woe is you. Your life has ended.

Here's what people should be worried about: At any given time, there are tens of thousands, maybe millions, of people who can access your social security number. Anyone on the internet with but a few lines of code, can get your home address, name, and phone number, how many children you have, your wife's name, where you work, and how much you make in a year.

Meanwhile people are worried that some company knows they visited one website and is now targeting ads and junk mail at them relating to the subject.

**Grey Templar**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:

It's interesting that the US will pursue legtimate off shore Casino sites for allowing Americans to use them, but not for our privacy to be protected. You could even say it's ironic that a country that won't give up the right to bare arms, in case the government turns bad, is happy for it's corporate world to exploit this data for financial gain... or is this guy just full of it?

Well, the corporation and data privacy can certaintly make your life hell, but we'd rather have our identity stolen or be bombarded with junk mail than have a Tyranical government. Lesser of two evils you know. They arn't comperable issues.

If you have your identity stolen, then that means you can have your home repossessed, bankruptcy declared, your bank accounts emptied and be on the hook for more debt than you've got stored in shoeboxes under your bed. You can easily end up homeless with nothing. Nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep, and you will not be eligible for any kind of relief services.

So tell me how that would put you in a better position than a "tyrannical" government.

Outliers. I doubt that happens except in the most extreme of situations.

**azazel the cat**

LordofHats wrote:Maybe I'm just a little crazy, but in the words of a guy who worked for Sun Microsystems: "You have no privacy, get over it."

This is the internet. You will have no more privacy on it than you would walking down a street. More so, the information that a website collects from people is meaningless to the point that to be concerned over it is paranoid. Oh no, they know that a person from Somewhere, Someplace (you) and you looked at a webpage about kitten eating a cheeseburger.

Woe is you. Your life has ended.

Here's what people should be worried about: At any given time, there are tens of thousands, maybe millions, of people who can access your social security number. Anyone on the internet with but a few lines of code, can get your home address, name, and phone number, how many children you have, your wife's name, where you work, and how much you make in a year.

Meanwhile people are worried that some company knows they visited one website and is now targeting ads and junk mail at them relating to the subject.

If you know what you're doing, you don't even need the lines of code.

Grey Templar wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:

It's interesting that the US will pursue legtimate off shore Casino sites for allowing Americans to use them, but not for our privacy to be protected. You could even say it's ironic that a country that won't give up the right to bare arms, in case the government turns bad, is happy for it's corporate world to exploit this data for financial gain... or is this guy just full of it?

Well, the corporation and data privacy can certaintly make your life hell, but we'd rather have our identity stolen or be bombarded with junk mail than have a Tyranical government. Lesser of two evils you know. They arn't comperable issues.

If you have your identity stolen, then that means you can have your home repossessed, bankruptcy declared, your bank accounts emptied and be on the hook for more debt than you've got stored in shoeboxes under your bed. You can easily end up homeless with nothing. Nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep, and you will not be eligible for any kind of relief services.

So tell me how that would put you in a better position than a "tyrannical" government.

Outliers. I doubt that happens except in the most extreme of situations.

Wow. You actually are making a point about that that being only in the most extreme of situations in the same discourse as the inference that the alternative is your government turning tyrannical. What was that about outliers, again?

**Ratbarf**

Actually I think statistically one's government turning tyrannical is more likely than getting one's identity stolen.

Not going on anything other than the vast majority of governments in history being tyrannical, and the relative chance of having one's identity stolen, which are at 200:1. Considering tyrannical governments make up a significant number of the UN.

**LordofHats**

azazel the cat wrote:

If you know what you're doing, you don't even need the lines of code.

True, but mostly I'm thinking of the script kiddies, cause there are thousands of programs freely available (and they're not hard to make either) that will hook IP address. Then it's just a hop and a skip to a few websites and they can find out what you ate for breakfast.

**azazel the cat**

Ratbarf wrote:Actually I think statistically one's government turning tyrannical is more likely than getting one's identity stolen.

Not going on anything other than the vast majority of governments in history being tyrannical, and the relative chance of having one's identity stolen, which are at 200:1. Considering tyrannical governments make up a significant number of the UN.

How many of those countries were first-world countries with established democratic processes?

**Grey Templar**

Germany turned tyrannical.

And Democracy as we know it today is still too young to have much of a track record on if it can resist tyrannical forces subverting it from the inside.

**Ahtman**

We do love to (talk) a good war in the US: War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Christmas, War on Poverty, War on Women, War on Men, ect ect. Threatening a trade war is just our way of keeping pace. Keeping up with something to go to war on takes a lot of time and energy.

**Kilkrazy**

The War on Privacy.
The War on Europe.
The War on Free Trade.

Yep. Sounds good!

**Ratbarf**

azazel the cat wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:Actually I think statistically one's government turning tyrannical is more likely than getting one's identity stolen.

Not going on anything other than the vast majority of governments in history being tyrannical, and the relative chance of having one's identity stolen, which are at 200:1. Considering tyrannical governments make up a significant number of the UN.

How many of those countries were first-world countries with established democratic processes?

Does it really matter? In addition, first world countries tend to go through tyrannical spells rather than full blown glorious leader. Both Canada and the US turned tyrannical during the Second world war, Canada did so during the first world war as well, and it can be argued that the US did too during the Civil War under Lincoln. Germany, Italy, Spain. They all turned out tyrannical regardless of a prior dedication to the democratic process.

**Kilkrazy**

You have a very low bar for what constitutes a tyranny.

**LordofHats**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You have a very low bar for what constitutes a tyranny.

I concur.

Does it really matter?

Yes.

**Grey Templar**

If you set the bar low you can nip it in the bud before it gets really bad.

**LordofHats**

I do find that when I set my expectations to 'utter disaster' I'm often pleasantly surprised

**Grey Templar**

Its good to be paranoid.

**Kilkrazy**

Grey Templar wrote:
If you set the bar low you can nip it in the bud before it gets really bad.

Apparently Heaven may be a tyranny.

Maybe you should kill God, just to be sure.

**Grey Templar**

Nice flamebait

**Relapse**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You have a very low bar for what constitutes a tyranny.

You have to admit, though, that the Japanese that had become citizens living here during WW2 didn't have such a grand time of it.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
I don't agree with the deal, you should be able to ask for your records to be deleted IMO.

But they aren't your records. They're our records regarding you.

**Kovnik Obama**

Ratbarf wrote:

Does it really matter? In addition, first world countries tend to go through tyrannical spells rather than full blown glorious leader. Both Canada and the US turned tyrannical during the Second world war, Canada did so during the first world war as well, and it can be argued that the US did too during the Civil War under Lincoln. Germany, Italy, Spain. They all turned out tyrannical regardless of a prior dedication to the democratic process.

I'd like an explanation on how we became a tyranny? Mackenzie King might have been an idiot, but a tyran?

You have to admit, though, that the Japanese that had become citizens living here during WW2 didn't have such a grand time of it.

As horrible as concentration camps can be, then are in no way a necessary or sufficient element to form a tyranny.

**Ratbarf**

Jap Camps and property expropriation. Same thing but to Ukranians in WW1. There is also Trudeau's famous "Watch me." Line.