There is a fundamental philosophical difference in European and American approach to law that makes these problems pop up.
America is common law based which in a way revolves around contracts. Two people can agree on anything, even giving up rights. That is why contracts in the US are so long and complicated. If something isn't in the contract it isn't covered. It also means there is a lot more suing in the US.
In Europe common law dominates which typically gives everybody a minimum set of rights which can't be given away. They apply regardless of what a contract says. So a contract in Europe can often be made smaller because what isn't covered in the contract will often be covered in the law. A lot more is implicit.
American understanding of society is about removing government hinderances for your pursuit of happiness. Government is not believe to have a role in giving you anything.
European understanding of society is that governments are there to ensure your rights. That means government will be more actively going after people who try to exploit you, while in America the reaction will be more "well you voluntarily agreed to this, so nothing we can do".
That means American companies can much more easily impose all sorts of ludicrous agreements on you, and you have no other choice but to agree to them or not get the service at all. In Europe you will more often be able to say "I want this service but your demands on me breaks the law."
With respect, I understand some people want this to be true, but the description of the United States is almost entirely incorrect in practice:
> American understanding of society is about removing government hinderances for your pursuit of happiness. Government is not believe to have a role in giving you anything.
That may be the desire of a few people, but currently in the U.S. government provides trillions of dollars in services to its citizens, from roads to security to healthcare to income to universities to transportation to communication to much, much more.
> European understanding of society is that governments are there to ensure your rights
Check out the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence, where you will find perhaps the most famous words from one of the most famous political documents in history:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
It's not just theory; in practice a very important role of governmnt in the U.S. is protecting rights. Many key rights for minorities and women are obtained through government. Property rights are protected by government. The U.S. Department of Justice even has a Civil Rights Division. [1] The whole contest for civil rights in the U.S. is centered around getting government to pass laws or rulings.
> Two people can agree on anything, even giving up rights.
That isn't accurate. For example, you cannot agree to be a slave or to give up your right to overtime, a safe work environment, etc.; even non-compete agreements often are difficult to enforce. The law trumps your contract.
More accurately, Two people can agree on anything; they can put whatever they want in the contract but it may not be enforceable.
The problem comes down to: how do you follow local or national laws when your business crosses many (or all) national boundaries? While we all would like better privacy protection, it's very hard to define exactly what that means for all types of information especially if it is different in different countries.
This is already a problem for lots of other things, so it is not unique. I worked in a oil service company in Norway and we always had a lot of crap to deal with to make sure nothing when we sold our software to Iran, no American was in any way involved in that process. That is difficult when you all work in an office with people from lots of places, and you are used to sharing information and working together and suddenly you have to be conscious about the citizenship of some of your colleagues.
There are already a myriad of national difference you have to deal with, accounting rules, rules on corruption and bribes, which country has which patents etc. Privacy just seems like any other item on that list.
Well, you have to obeye local law. Only because the internet makes it easy to provide services in other countries doesn't put you outside their law - the territorial principle applies.
Regarding the data protection specifics, well, maybe it makes sense to follow the standards of the most rigid country globally?
The wild west manner of US-companies and government are really annoying, the mindset is - if I get my hand on the data it's my property. That is wrong, the user trusts "you" with it's data and expects it's usage only in the beforehand given consent for the necessary purposes.
It's like copyright, the company has certain usage rights but does not own it.
The principles are easy: data processing has to be purposeful, lawful, fair and user rights and will is to be respected.
The sticking point seems to still be spying. It's generally outside the control of big tech companies, and so the issue is really between governments, and companies are stuck in the middle. (Yes, I know some have colluded with spy agencies, but not always willingly.)
I think more and more you may find it becomes popular to mandate a user's data be retained in their country of origin. Otherwise some sort of agreement would need to be made that a foreign citizen's data on a corporate data center is like an embassy... it's digitally treated like it's on that nation's soil, and subject to that nation's laws.
The latter is likely much less practical in the real world, because our spy agencies don't really care where your data is, they're going to try and collect it, and the EU has made it clear that isn't okay with them.
In an ideal world, the United States and other major nations would all sign privacy laws as strong as the EU's. But I can't see that happening in our current political climate. Parties on both sides are more than happy to strip us of our privacy. And corporations oppose it as well.
You start with being ethical. In the online business, that pretty much covers most things with the exception of VAT, the clusterfuck known as "intellectual property", and the fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. (I'm ignoring doing business in repressive regimes, because there you've only got yourself to blame.)
The only reason why US companies are in trouble in Europe is because they use unethical practices that happen to still be legal in the US.
However, it was pretty obvious up front that those practices are unethical and illegal in most of the Western world.
So please, stop whining about the complexities of international businesses when the root cause is simply a lack of basic decency.
This is indicative of how nationalism, a concept formed as a result of the effects of the Gutenberg printing press[1], is now obsolete and counterproductive in a globalized, electrically interconnected society.
There's also a Data Protection Regulation that should pass the EU Parliament this year and will unify the privacy laws in the EU (for the most part). Although, as usual with EU regulations and directives, it will be about 2 years before national governments implement it locally.
No one makes you sign up for Google or Facebook. By using those services, you accept their terms. What the EU is doing is actually taking away your options.
As another non-native speaker, I think both are correct. It's the different between "American" english and "British" english. The title being american (NYTimes), and "zeroes in" being British.
[+] [-] jernfrost|10 years ago|reply
America is common law based which in a way revolves around contracts. Two people can agree on anything, even giving up rights. That is why contracts in the US are so long and complicated. If something isn't in the contract it isn't covered. It also means there is a lot more suing in the US.
In Europe common law dominates which typically gives everybody a minimum set of rights which can't be given away. They apply regardless of what a contract says. So a contract in Europe can often be made smaller because what isn't covered in the contract will often be covered in the law. A lot more is implicit.
American understanding of society is about removing government hinderances for your pursuit of happiness. Government is not believe to have a role in giving you anything.
European understanding of society is that governments are there to ensure your rights. That means government will be more actively going after people who try to exploit you, while in America the reaction will be more "well you voluntarily agreed to this, so nothing we can do".
That means American companies can much more easily impose all sorts of ludicrous agreements on you, and you have no other choice but to agree to them or not get the service at all. In Europe you will more often be able to say "I want this service but your demands on me breaks the law."
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
> American understanding of society is about removing government hinderances for your pursuit of happiness. Government is not believe to have a role in giving you anything.
That may be the desire of a few people, but currently in the U.S. government provides trillions of dollars in services to its citizens, from roads to security to healthcare to income to universities to transportation to communication to much, much more.
> European understanding of society is that governments are there to ensure your rights
Check out the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence, where you will find perhaps the most famous words from one of the most famous political documents in history:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
It's not just theory; in practice a very important role of governmnt in the U.S. is protecting rights. Many key rights for minorities and women are obtained through government. Property rights are protected by government. The U.S. Department of Justice even has a Civil Rights Division. [1] The whole contest for civil rights in the U.S. is centered around getting government to pass laws or rulings.
[1] http://www.justice.gov/crt
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
That isn't accurate. For example, you cannot agree to be a slave or to give up your right to overtime, a safe work environment, etc.; even non-compete agreements often are difficult to enforce. The law trumps your contract.
More accurately, Two people can agree on anything; they can put whatever they want in the contract but it may not be enforceable.
[+] [-] ppereira|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soperj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jernfrost|10 years ago|reply
There are already a myriad of national difference you have to deal with, accounting rules, rules on corruption and bribes, which country has which patents etc. Privacy just seems like any other item on that list.
[+] [-] killerpopiller|10 years ago|reply
Regarding the data protection specifics, well, maybe it makes sense to follow the standards of the most rigid country globally?
The wild west manner of US-companies and government are really annoying, the mindset is - if I get my hand on the data it's my property. That is wrong, the user trusts "you" with it's data and expects it's usage only in the beforehand given consent for the necessary purposes. It's like copyright, the company has certain usage rights but does not own it.
The principles are easy: data processing has to be purposeful, lawful, fair and user rights and will is to be respected.
[+] [-] themartorana|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|10 years ago|reply
The latter is likely much less practical in the real world, because our spy agencies don't really care where your data is, they're going to try and collect it, and the EU has made it clear that isn't okay with them.
In an ideal world, the United States and other major nations would all sign privacy laws as strong as the EU's. But I can't see that happening in our current political climate. Parties on both sides are more than happy to strip us of our privacy. And corporations oppose it as well.
[+] [-] makeitsuckless|10 years ago|reply
The only reason why US companies are in trouble in Europe is because they use unethical practices that happen to still be legal in the US.
However, it was pretty obvious up front that those practices are unethical and illegal in most of the Western world.
So please, stop whining about the complexities of international businesses when the root cause is simply a lack of basic decency.
[+] [-] laotzu|10 years ago|reply
[1] The Gutenberg Galaxy, Marshall McLuhan
[+] [-] mtgx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zikes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alistairSH|10 years ago|reply
I wish there was a global setting to accept all cookies and stop annoying me.
Sigh.
[+] [-] ohthehugemanate|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
What does a U.S. citizen gain from not having the option for privacy? You always can forgo it if you like.
[+] [-] wildmusings|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ithkuil|10 years ago|reply
EDIT: "to zero in" being a verb. For the noun, I know there are two alternative spelling for the plural.
[+] [-] Phemist|10 years ago|reply