Dutch DPA fines Uber €290M because of transfers of drivers’ data to the US(autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl) |
Dutch DPA fines Uber €290M because of transfers of drivers’ data to the US(autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl) |
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.
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.
It seems the dutch regulator is saying "why don't you just go away?". The feeling is likely mutual.
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...
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
The US is where companies from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to Visa, Mastercard and Equifax are headquartered.
EU-based snooping companies just aren't as good at it, and don't have anywhere near the same scale.
This explanation makes sense, but assuming "certain governments" includes the US then the remedy isn't stronger laws in the US, it's weaker laws—it means that the US was the first to break the borderless internet and it needs to rewrite its laws to be border-agnostic.
Most companies are negligent. Many of those are also deliberately negligent
I had maybe one occasion where upon asking questions about how long they store my information and who exactly they give it to, I actually got answers and learned something. It was a dentist office, and by that time I had been visiting them so often that we were practically friends.
The rest of the time (mostly in hotels), they didn’t like it very much that I took time to read through their GDPR forms and actively withdraw my consent from optional things, of which there was like 85%, and some dealt with sharing my data with undisclosed marketing partners. Some of this, especially the undisclosed bit, I think, is a no-no under GDPR, although a lawyer may promise you a way to weasel out of trouble.
Note that when you deal with public administration, depending on the country, they may have you sign something to the effect that if they fine you and you don’t pay, your data will go to a debt collection firm, at which point you may assume it goes to all of them, because they trade debts between themselves, too. And of course, those share data with further companies according to agreements between themselves to which you are not a party, so I’m wondering if there is/should be a way to curb them…
Heck, many documents that I saw while interacting with P.A. in my country are lacking the basics, such as "what are you doing with the data".
One clinic once made me sign a document where they said that I received a copy of the privacy policy (which was not given to me). I politely asked for the privacy policy, and they sent me the entire GDPR regulation PDF. I spent one hour explaining to them that they need to fix it.
[1]: https://commission.europa.eu/document/fa09cbad-dd7d-4684-ae6... [2]: https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/list (no deeplinks for some reason)
I've found that this is mostly a problem in organisations where data isn't managed, the government doesn't protect the people, or where some vague value is assigned to the data (so it does get stored, but when it leaks it is supposed to not have value and therefore do no damage). So looking at it from an "you will be managing it anyway" angle has worked well for me when trying to activate teams/units/orgs.
There isn't a process because US law makes it clear that US companies should be auxiliary to illegal acts abroad. And we find out every few months, that even when they aren't forced to, they disregard the law.
Sure, maybe they're not "evil", but they apparently can't find a way to be law-abiding entities.
Oh no, it's the US government that claims authority to use these companies to surveil EU citizens that is the problem here. One that, unfortunately, does affect all US companies.
what is the major insight that you are trying to share?
If there is indeed a lot of personal identifying information from Europeans on Reddit, then they'd better get ready for a GDPR investigation.
This feels like an outdated worldview that no longer really applies to data. Data can be exfiltrated from the EU in milliseconds and there's nothing that the EU can physically do about it short of setting up a great firewall a la China.
The only thing they can do about it to retain sovereignty is to tell companies they're not allowed to exfiltrate data. But if they can do that successfully, they can also just tell the companies what they're allowed to do with the data wherever it is in the world.
If that someone is a legal entity within your jurisdiction, you have lots of options.
I edited my original comment to link to someone who gave a good explanation—what I hadn't considered is how difficult tracking suppliers and subcontractors recursively and ensuring that they all have a presence in the EU would be. I think it's a bad solution to that problem, but it does make sense.
Right, but the EU can only enforce its laws on companies that have a presence in the EU. A company that doesn't do business in the EU and never will do business in the EU will not obey EU law regardless of what those laws say.
Meanwhile, a company that does business in the EU would be subject to fines by the EU and wouldn't be able to dodge them without just stopping doing business in the EU. So why do the laws not just say "here's how you have to treat data belonging to our citizens if you want to continue to do business in the EU"? Why does the physical location of the data that is being thus protected matter at all?
The company would need to have a DPA with it's cloud provider. That cloud provider technically would also need a corresponding DPA with any 3rd parties that they themselves use, except without an EU presence that is hard to enforce.
In this case where there is one hop you could argue that it's the companies responsibility to ensure that their service providers are operating in compliance. Imagine the same scenario, but with one, two or more middlemen and the whole thing becomes an unenforceable mess of jurisdictions for the company to do meaningful due diligence on their service providers.
It's much easier for the EU to say EU data has to be stored in the EU, and know that any party touching the data is likely to be in compliance, and significantly easier to investigate if they are not.
As far as I understand, the EU is fine with you sending data to other countries, as long as those countries have the same standards for data protection. In the EU's opinion, the Cloud act, as well as the whole NSA situation, mean that the US doesn't fulfill this definition.
And does US law really prevent them from handling EU customer data in a compliant way? Could you give a specific example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act
However, it does not prevent data at rest being stored in the EU. Only that if requested the american company has to exfiltrate it to the states.
https://www.edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/1...
You might understand that I read only Bio and LinkedIn, not your whole blog. Also again very very American thinking. Im just amused.
These laws seem to have been written for the age of fax machines, not for today.
Yes, we have a GPDR compliant law in place, and we can interoperate with EU.
The EU has a law that said you must treat data of their citizens with respect. Fine, that's great. Any business that has a presence in the EU will need to follow that law. At that point, why does it matter where the bits are actually stored? Can the EU for some reason not enforce its privacy laws on Uber if Uber keeps its data somewhere else?
Conversely, if a business has no presence in the EU, can the EU enforce its data location laws on them?
The only thing that seems to matter for enforcement is where the company is located, so I'm really unclear what data location has to do with anything.
Yes. Even assuming these laws still work if data is in another jurisdiction (prob. not), they become unenforceable. If someone sells your data in, say, Somalia, how could EU gather evidence and start a legal process?
Maybe not, especially if they are separate corporate entities. Uber EU may choose to pay for operation of data storage by Uber US. Uber US is not under the same privacy restrictions and sells the data for profit, then what? Who sues who and for what?
This is also partly about governments - the US in particular is known for compelling access to servers that are on its soil and doing large-scale spying (not that EU powers don’t do the same, but bear with me). Companies operating in the US may not be legally able to guarantee data privacy. So having the data not enter US jurisdiction in the first place is considered safer.
Note how I didn’t mention capitalism to have bad morals or to be evil. I did say heartless because neglecting morality (good or bad) feels heartless.
The participation exemption in the Netherlands allows companies to receive dividends and capital gains from qualifying foreign subsidiaries free from Dutch corporate tax. This is particularly beneficial for multinational corporations with substantial foreign operations, as it prevents profits from being taxed multiple times as they move up through the corporate structure.
The Netherlands is a popular location for holding companies due to its favorable tax regime for holding and managing subsidiaries. The combination of participation exemptions, tax treaties, and rulings makes it ideal for structuring complex international operations.
So... a nation like the Netherlands optimizes their tax laws such that it's advantageous for businesses that are otherwise completely unrelated to their nation to HQ in their nation to avoid their proper tax burdens in the country they were started in and operate in much more significantly, for the benefit of the Netherlands getting additional tax revenue and to the detriment of other nations who would otherwise be able to tax that business.
Some people might call that a "tax shelter." Since it you know, benefits Uber, benefits the Netherlands, at the detriment of the nation(s) that Uber operates in...
I would highly recommend the book!
You have massive selection bias in your sample. “Morally-based decision ends well” is not exactly something that makes headlines or that is seized upon by historians to explain memorable cataclysmic events.
You don’t need to be an ethics expert to see a difference between moral principles that lead to suffering, and moral principles that don’t.
Waving away all morality in moral nihilism is teenage-level ethical sophistication.
Sure they would, I think? They would just have to foot the bill to travel and file in a US court. And whatever user agreements they 'agreed' to might come in to play without legislation to supersede it. But they would have standing, I'm pretty sure.
Schrems I [1] (the old CJEU judgment invalidating Safe Harbor) endorses (§90) the opinion that:
> [D]ata subjects [whose personal data was transferred to the US] had no administrative or judicial means of redress enabling, in particular, the data relating to them to be accessed and, as the case may be, rectified or erased.
In what reads like a reference to FISA, it continues (§95):
> Likewise, legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, does not respect the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union].
It then stops short of calling out FISA by name, instead (IIUC) invalidating on the basis that the adequacy of the legal regime was not addressed in the Safe Harbour decision to begin with. Privacy Shield came next and did, so Schrems II [2] (the newer judgment invalidating Privacy Shield) states (§181–2):
> According to the findings in the Privacy Shield Decision, the implementation of the surveillance programmes based on Section 702 of the FISA is, indeed, subject to the requirements of PPD‑28. However, although the Commission stated, in recitals 69 and 77 of the Privacy Shield Decision, that such requirements are binding on the US intelligence authorities, the US Government has accepted, in reply to a question put by the Court, that PPD‑28 does not grant data subjects actionable rights before the courts against the US authorities. Therefore, the Privacy Shield Decision cannot ensure a level of protection essentially equivalent to that arising from the Charter [...].
> As regards the monitoring programmes based on E.O. 12333, it is clear from the file before the Court that that order does not confer rights which are enforceable against the US authorities in the courts either.
It sounds like the official legal position of the US executive is that individual foreigners do not have standing to contest FISA 702 surveillance of them. (I could not quickly find the text of that position.) This is a 2020 judgment in a case from July 2018 regarding a European Commission decision from 2016, so the implications of the CLOUD Act, signed in March 2018, do not look to be in scope.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62...
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62...
>> The CLOUD Act primarily...
As far as I understand (IANAL) the CLOUD Act has not been used as basis of decision at least for Schrems II. The primary issues court found were regarding surveillance programs authorized under Section 702 of the FISA & executive order 12333.
Full Schrems II judgement is available at https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
It's completely sane from the EU's point of view. Why would they submit their citizens to forceful government eavesdrop?
I do agree it's insane. But the insanity is not on the GDPR.
I doubt this will change any time soon. The GDPR isn't going away, and the USA isn't known for loosening their data collection laws. Maybe in a few years the EU can find a legal ground to allow the USA to spy on EU citizens without acceptable legal defences, maybe the USA will give up their capability to use American businesses as a tool to spy on the EU, but for now surveillance law is a major roadblock for American companies expanding to Europe.
Could you explain how the Uber drivers are worse off due to their data being in the USA?
Following your reasoning, then the whole legislation is moot, and all European citizens data should be sifoned in the US without anyone complaining, because "hey, I'm in the UE so you cannot touch me", no?
It’s not from us to explain why would drivers be worse. It’s from the one who took the datas to explain why would drivers be better. Because if they would have been better I guess Uber would have done a marketing campaign around it to talk about the benefits instead of doing it this way without anyone noticing.
They are now at risk if there is a data leak in the USA. There are higher fines for data leaks in Europe, so they aren't as well protected as before
The analogy to China during the industrial revolution is simply non-applicable, to the point of not being even wrong.
Oh I agree with that. EC's behaviour in that case is appalling.
> Corporations can't necessarily trust the EC's own interpretations of their own laws
There is a way to be safe with regards to EU law, and it's to engineer systems where European data stays in Europe. Of course, the issue is that corporations would then be liable under US' FISA 702.
That's the big issue: the United States made a law that basically states that no US company should follow EU law, and the US admin manages to beat EC officials into submission every few years with another flawed agreement to keep the ball rolling.
It's easy to say that the US should just scrap s.702, but unless it's reciprocal with Europe scrapping their interception powers as well, that's a pretty unrealistic ask.
As a consumer, I can't visit every factory to check if the pasta isn't tainted with lead, if the chicken meat isn't full of antibiotics and hormones and if the webapp I am using isn't selling my data.
We have market regulations for reasons. Companies that won't comply should be punished and if it's a repeatable offence they should lose a license to operate in EU.
Chokepoint Capitalism with Cory Doctorow - FACTUALLY Podcast: https://youtu.be/vluAOGJPPoM?si=zuezwnlUHhuoQFNt&t=2668
Importantly though, the law does not suffice with "careful". We *think* we have our bases covered and are careful to try to ensure they are but we're not sure how to *know* our bases are covered. There's the fear that some logs that we believe are anonymous might be considered identifying by some data scientist armed with techniques we've never heard of. There's the concern that some third-party library might dynamically pull in a font-set that comes from a US-based CDN based on some user configuration that we don't foresee. There's the anxiety of asking "Did we forget something? Is the DNS server in us-east-1?" when trying to roll out new features.
These are all strawmen, but they represent the kind of anxiety we feel. Having done our best to respect the requirements and the spirit in which they were written, there's the fear that we were imperfect in our awareness and that that something could cost us a fine that would have gone to someone's salary.
I would very much condemn the indiscriminate collecting, reuse, and selling of personal data, but I would also caution that those of us wanting to play by the rules find them lacking in precision.
No idea why you would feel the anxiety. If you're found lacking, you will forest get s notification from the DPA asking you to remedy the situation. You wont even be fined
This is an ongoing geopolitical spat and compliance in good faith is currently impossible.
I have spoken to many lawyers about this. Any US company operating in the EU is at risk of constant fines no matter what you do, due to this geopolitical issue.
So why don't the poor trillion-dollar supranational corporations do anything about it?
I can tell you why: they are happy about this. And you can often find they sign their support for these laws in the US.
--- start quote ---
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.
The CLOUD Act received support from Department of Justice and of major technology companies like Microsoft, AWS, Apple, and Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act?wprov=sfti1#
--- end quote ---
Boohoo cry me a river about the plight of these poor hapless companies.
I am assuming you refer to a law proposal that was rejected, but did you know americans were sponsoring and pushing that law proposal to spy on chats? Yeah same CP people.
Also there is a GIANT difference for a country to "spy" on their own citizens and USA spying on foreigners , a country has a consitution and lwas that protect the citizens freedom where USA has no laws that protect foreigners freedom so the NSA guys could watch an EU citizens photos, read their emails since they are not from USA they are lesser humans.
This is a wrong phrasing of the problem: The US is not, and has never been, a safe haven to transfer personal data to. However, it would significantly impact trade (and policing) concerns between the EU and the US if that statement were to be treated seriously. This is why the European Commission and the Parliament have repeatedly tried to create a framework which allows transfer of data despite the US' insistence on secret access to the data without due process (aka secret courts, which cannot be due process by any reasonable definition). European courts, again repeatedly, have taken the stipulations in various laws guaranteeing rights to citizens seriously, and keep striking down the badly made frameworks. It's not "shifting goal posts", but rather "not willing to accept the political costs of respecting citizens' rights".
I agree though that it can be hard for a US company to comply with GDPR as every country seems to interpret it slightly differently. The same difficulty is coming on the AI legislation side.
The correct analogy: “There’s cannibals in both countries governments. Country A claims Uber hasn’t done enough to protect from Country B’s government cannibals.
This ignores the shifting rules around proper data transfers to the US, but you wanted a pithy logical fallacy, so there you go.
That is common indeed. What's peculiar with US law is that it can mandate companies to move data about people outside of US jurisdiction that is stored outside of US jurisdiction and turn it over to US authorities, even when it violates local law.
The EU does not have the motivation, mostly. They are not rivals of the US in the way China is. So money goes elsewhere. Europe is still a continent with a whole bunch of people and quite a lot of money. The path of least resistance is to just use American solutions in some areas and to develop others locally. This might change and if there is a vacuum, it will be filled quickly.
* ride hailing alternatives: FreeNow, Bolt
* food delivery: Wolt (technically owned by DoorDash, but still), Just Eat, Bolt Food
* bikes / scooters: Tier, Bolt, NextBike, Voi, and many others
If Uber leaves, there won't be any void to fill.
This is kind of a FUD fueled false dichotomy, when the truth is we can't know if the EU doesn't have time or resources if it never tries.
What the US has that EU doesn't is the infinte money to throw in the bonfire at moonshot projects knowing that 99% will fail and the 1% will be hugely successful, but now the market is mature with less untapped opportunities, and the EU doesn't have to spend like the US did to achieve the same results, since we now know what works and what doesn't and how to make an Uber that's compliant with local regulations while using less money.
at a macro level i don’t think things stand still waiting for the europeans to catch up. i think things are moving extremely fast and you either adapt or “stagnate”.
This is a smartphone app that buys a local service that already exists, it's not hard... In fact alternatives already exist.. I mean of course they do cmon.
On the flip side do you realise the lithographic tech used to build your Intel fabs come from EU? (ASML) building an alternative to that will take serious time and resources. EU is not some third world country.
Oh no. What would we poor Europeans do without a US company to lead us. /s
Of course local and regional players would appear, as they always have and are already in place in multiple segments.
Bolt, Glovo, Delivery Hero and many others are successful competitors to different Uber offerings in the different European markets they operate.
The biggest gap in Europe is not due to a lack of technical ability but rather of European wide capital that's not super risk averse.
It’s both. Copying a validated business model is not a sign of competency.
Name one non-capitalistic system more moral than the currently existing ones.
All rankings trying to quantify morality and order societies by it, are consistently topped by social market economies, a form of capitalism.
> Waving away all morality in moral nihilism is teenage-level ethical sophistication.
It is also something I have never done. With the edits to your post, its nature became more and more apologetic to dictatorships. I hope this was not what you have intended.
What are you talking about?(!)
It’s easy to point to some barbaric act and say “see, this is what morally motivated policies result in”.
But in reality, moral value judgments are all around us in the most mundane of places. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to have anti-monopoly laws. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to configure tax codes one way or another. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to appreciate the things that capitalism gives us. Etc etc. You can’t escape it.
Food delivery companies, ride sharing companies, flight & boarding booking companies are all expendable. If one goes down, another one will spring up tomorrow.