I was pretty sure under Bush the alien tort law was dropped, probably to protect Chevron and other offenders from environmental suits and to prevent standing for things like the terroristic use of drones. But didn’t we just say under the pretense of not tracking Bush’s money warrents were honored both ways just like the extradition agreements for people like Assange- totally outrageous. But I think @janitor is right and the EU will just injunct and bar a firm from the market following the leadership example of China on Google. Hopefull they power through the too big to fail and remain unappologetic when investor losses crash the Wall St. Ponzi scheme. These money thugs are brittle they can’t take a punch on the nose.
My comparison was from a perspective of jurisdiction. Also, I wouldn’t call California’s practice accepted: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to a trade group challenging a Colorado law seeking to aid state authorities in the collection of sales taxes on out-of-state purchases made online.” (see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/business/supreme-court-backs-trade-groups-challenge-to-internet-sales-tax-law.html)
And the Marketplace Fairnesss Act hasn’t passed yet.
I don’t have time to read up on this now, but I don’t think that California regulates people living in Nevada (once that is possible) - it only demands easier tax compliance for its own citizens (whereby they can pay Cali sales tax online, or choose not to buy ;-)) and also that this would be possible only because the both are governed by the same US Constitution (which is why the dispute is handled by the Supreme Court, and not the UN).
I also think that in case of SAFE a US based app vendor cannot know the location of the user, so the nature of their service makes it impossible to differentiate between US- and EU-based users.
So no, I don’t think this EU nonsense will apply to US-based SAFE app vendors and commercial farmers, and because of the same principle (of how SAFE works) I think that it will be interesting to see who (the Foundation, the app vendor, the user, the farmer?) is it on SAFE Network that transmits personal data abroad.
Now, I agree, or at least I am hopeful on this point.
I frankly don’t share your view that U.S. courts would automatically reject EU judgments. I hope you are right, but my understanding is that EU judgments are generally enforced absent some specific problem, and I don’t think that “EU nonsense” would be enough.
In all your answers you haven’t responded to the original salient quote. It seems that with ANY discussion, you always start from your fundamentalist position: “Taxation is theft” / “Governments are thugs” (which may have elements of truth but does not help in a discussion of the real world) and develop your position from there - but this process always ignores real-word problems. Can you please state how the problem quoted above would be dealt with in YOUR WORLD? - I am genuinely interested in your solution . .
Thanks,
P.
2 Likes
In our world, I would hope that everyone could choose whatever suits him the best. One user could sell his personal data if he wanted to, another would find a provider who caters to privacy-oriented users, the third would pick one from a group of providers who abide by voluntary guidelines and are regularly and audited by one of private companies who are recognized (by the free market) for their integrity and independence (a form of “private government”, or governance).
I say our world because it wouldn’t be my world. I have no desire to see you do things my way. You could freely choose to form and participate in an enterprise (“private government”) bound by the exactly same laws as these EU laws. It wouldn’t bother me a bit, I’d just feel it’s a shame that you willingly submit yourself to that misery.
Perhaps I should also mention that there would be no state surveillance to begin with, because we’d live in a stateless society.
We all should be hopeful that national laws get never enforced worldwide because that is exactly what “they” want. The EU is awful enough as is.
Slightly OT, the main reason this whole story really pisses me of is that no one is forced to use FB or Google, and the fact that EU governments (national) have actually assisted the NSA in this crime are not even recognized by the EU Kumbaya crowd (including those on this forum). So the feeble attempt to stop this crime, instead of jailing hundreds of government employees across the EU (including Angela Merkel, for example), has been completely bastardized and turned into yet another victory for statist thugs: after crime, there’s a reward in form of protectionist policies.
To add insult to injury, the new “policy of protection” makes it actually harder (expensive, etc.) to commercially deploy solutions that actually protect data and privacy. You can’t make this up!
OK, that seems to be the nub of the problem - we are not there and, as far as I can see, we can’t / won’t get there. So, in the real world, do you approve of the EU doing SOMETHING that helps protect its citizens?
I would approve if they decide to implement the justice system, instead of making more useless laws in their legal system.
Normally in a free society if your data was accessed by unauthorized third party, you could sue the telco (or Google, FB), and in this case also - because they aided the NSA - your own government.
So you would perhaps be awarded $500 or so in restitution from your telco, Angela Merkel, her Comms, Interior and Defense ministers, as well as a bunch of those who “only executed orders” to assist the NSA. Unnecessary to say, $500/user would bankrupt them, they couldn’t pay and they would therefore get a life in jail. (I omitted Google and FB, assuming they didn’t know, but if found guilty I’d add them to these groups; I think we can with certainty tell that the German government and probably all others, knew that unauthorized data access by the NSA was going on).
Instead the same people who should be rotting in jail are now getting wined and dined by EU telcos and ISPs to pass more protectionist laws.
Yes, that’s all very nice but it is not going to happen so how do you propose we make some progress to your Libertarian Arcadia? As Lenin said: “What is to be done?”. You seem to have a destination in mind with no way of getting there . .
1 Like
Philip, I’ve minimized my participation in the official system and as the informal systems grow more popular and stronger, I’m happier by the day. On the other hand states are looking weaker, more clueless and more desperate as they slowly descend into the realm of fascism.
And to those (happybeing et al.) who rejoiced at this “breakthrough” for data protection in the EU and are committed to working within the system: it didn’t take long for clouds to gather on the statist horizon:
Finally, according to the existing language, while the host is dissuaded from telling you about any of this procedure, they are compelled to hand over personal information about you to the original complainant. So this part of EU’s data protection law would actually release personal information!
I’m quite happy to see them waste their time to create an even worse climate for the freedom of speech because that should drive even more people away and further shrink the already pathetic participation in the system of government. If you look at election statistics, the numbers are already pathetic and it can be said that the only ones who bother to vote are pensioners, public servants, public company employees and few other groups who depend on welfare and redistribution (e.g. farmers in France). In other groups the majority has already given up.
1 Like
Eh?..Descending into Fascism!
“More than any other instrument, the original Directive has created a high global standard for personal data protection, and led many other countries to follow Europe’s approach. Over the years, Europe has grown ever more committed to the idea of data protection as a core value”
“proposed amendments to the GDPR are still being considered”
. “the problems identified can be overcome by relatively simple amendments to the GDPR,”
This is a draft proposal and the very title of the piece is “Unintended Consequences”. You ascribe intent (Fascism) where the motivation is entirely different and it’s all still being thrashed out. .
Please don’t attempt to characteristics my positions using your own opinion. What you say is crude and misleading, so please stick to facts and quotes when referring to other community members. I say this both personally and as a moderator.
1 Like
Just out of interest: Who enforces the law in your “free” society? And who controls this enforcing body? Robocops sorta?
1 Like
Just out of interest: Who enforces the law in your “free” society? And who controls this enforcing body? Robocops sorta?
I’m not an ancap myself, but as a person interested in politics and philosophy, I recommend you this video where David Friedman explains how it would be the law system on a free society:
The Machinery of Freedom
2 Likes
I am aware of David Friedman and his writings - actually I read them during my studies since one of my professors was pretty much into anarchy. I see a lot of problems in Friedmans ideas, but I am not interested in having a metadiscussion. It happens quite often on this forum that people argue with videos and links. I am more interested in @janitor s personal vision.
1 Like
A private court or other 3rd party arbiter.
Not given a choice to have such arrangement I would not sign up with the said telco and I’d find a competitor who does provide better T&C’s.
And as if the uncertainty whether such telcos would exist change the fact that the current system is fascist.
1 Like