The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) might serve as a foreshadow of how these discussions might play out.
If you're not familiar, FATCA came out of the financial crisis as a way to uncover the undeclared assets held in foreign banks by wealthy Americans.
To get foreign governments to go along, the US more or less forced their parliaments to sign agreements with the US and pass local enforcement laws.
In short, these rules compelled domestic banks to share the bank account data of any US person in their system. If the bank didn't comply, the US could seize 30% of their US-based assets.
The results have been mostly catastrophic.
For one, FATCA didn't capture a lot of revenue for the IRS as most wealthy Americans shelter their assets domestically in trusts and LLCs.
Second, it had the effect of ruining the lives of ordinary Americans living abroad who, while by no means wealthy, were working middle class. People like myself had our bank accounts closed and were subject to being presumed money launders and tax evaders. Many expats -- including accidental Americans who only gained US nationality because they were born on US soil while their parents were on short-term work assignments -- lost their retirement accounts and mortgages.
More damningly, the US continues to refuse sharing bank account data of foreigners living in America back to their home countries, as per the agreement.
The reason for this refusal? The US government cites American banking privacy laws.
In other words, FATCA turned the US into the world's largest tax haven.
I have no doubt that the US will leverage its position as global tech leader in any data sharing deal to create a similar useless structure abound with unintended negative consequences.
> Second, it had the effect of ruining the lives of ordinary Americans living abroad who, while by no means wealthy, were working middle class. People like myself had our bank accounts closed...
Yup. Many banks in the EU simply said: "Screw that, we're not complying. We just kick all the US citizens out and close their account and refuse to ever deal with any US citizen now". I've had several bankers at different banks tell me the same. Now none of them told me they were consider these accounts as belonging to tax evaders: it's just that the complexity of complying was crazy.
You see the same on some website: some sites in the US simply don't want to bother complying with EU laws, so they just give the fingers to anyone coming to the site from an IP address in the EU.
That's the thing: a state or supranational entity like the EU can come up with any law it wants, private companies in other states aren't forced to comply. They can just give the middle finger and say: "if that's how you want to play it, then your citizens are out".
It’s not just FATCA either, if you’re an ordinary US citizen living abroad, and you want to start even a trivially small business in a foreign country, the IRS will fuck you. You have reams and reams of compliance paperwork to do, 5471s etc, aimed at multimillion dollar multinationals, even if your annual turnover is less than $1000. It’s hugely chilling to Americans living abroad
> In other words, FATCA turned the US into the world's largest tax haven.
Was this unintended though? Every government wants rich foreigners to park money in their shores, whether legally obtained or not. Bonus points if it is an easily seizable asset like bank accounts and property.
In light of this it's fairly suprising that there aren't more laws forcing data to remain inside of the country or guaranteeing continuity of service.
It would make for a pretty big hammer, but countries could theoretically force local corporations to perform arbitrary actions on data hosted in country e.g. Shut FB down for a country, block access to hosted photos, cease providing cloud monitoring/actions for a refinery.
While historically the majority of global tech firms were headquartered in the US and the US had friendly treaty deals with most of the world. Neither of those statements seem like a sure bet in the 2030s.
It makes me uncomfortable to see how much tech companies spend lobbying, decentralized data is probably the most appropriate way to protect peoples' data.
I think you have it backwards, unfortunately. Data can always be deleted, but American laws can’t be changed. With an evenly split Senate, where the opposition has declared a “100% focus” on stopping the government’s agenda, and you need 60% to pass anything — let’s just say that all non-spending bills are effectively dead for the next 18 months. And most likely, far beyond that. Laws can’t really change here, so we have to live with the system we have, and hope that courts interpret the laws in better ways.
> Many in Washington, though, grumble that European national security agencies are still able to access U.S. citizens' data via bulk data collection, while Europe now wants U.S. federal authorities to limit similar practices.
Don't ask us to pass something you're not even willing to.
Is this like how environmental practices, worker rights, and carbon taxes should be part of every trading agreement? And don't forget a global income tax, that should be part of the agreement, too, right?
Problem being, the EU is a net exporter while the US is the world's net importer. So the US calls the shots on the trade agreement front, and everyone lines up, hat in hand, to try to sell their surplus production to the only nation willing and able to absorb it -- the U.S.
Once the EU starts running large persistent trade deficits then it can start insisting on things in trade agreements and other nations will have to give up those juicy surpluses or agree to the EU's demands. But that's not the state of the world at the moment.
I feel it should be opt-in, that is I should be allowed to opt-in to data sharing. Why would I want this? Well if I were in a western country, for redundancy.
If I were in a non-Democracy then I might want my data to not only live in another country but only live there to protect me from my own country.
> "On the commercial side, we don't see such a big issue," she told POLITICO. "But of course, there is the issue of access to data from the national security agencies, and we have to be absolutely sure that there is no mass surveillance of data of Europeans when it travels to the U.S."
That's the exact opposite of my understanding of the status quo - mass surveillance of data of Europeans when it travels to the U.S.
I'd start with clear guarantees protecting EU data stored and processed in the EU by US companies/subsidiaries against (legal) US government/military access. I think that's the status quo assumption that companies are operating on, but it's far from clear how it actually works.
We didn't get them for passing the EU/Disney copyright term extension back in the 90s and I doubt we'll get any representation from this as well.
That's kind of just how internationalism works. It's inherently undemocratic.
If you want democratic internationalism, then what you're asking for is a federal union with total freedom of movement, no internal borders, and no unilateral exit procedure. In other words, not internationalism.
This is how you get the "Making Europe shut up about it Act of 2021" that has toothless penalties and doesn't provide any funding for enforcement anyway.
The whole reason that this is an issue now is that previous efforts were not deemed adequate. A “we won’t fix it, but we’ll vaguely pretend to fix it” approach probably won’t fly.
[+] [-] unclesams-uncle|4 years ago|reply
If you're not familiar, FATCA came out of the financial crisis as a way to uncover the undeclared assets held in foreign banks by wealthy Americans.
To get foreign governments to go along, the US more or less forced their parliaments to sign agreements with the US and pass local enforcement laws.
In short, these rules compelled domestic banks to share the bank account data of any US person in their system. If the bank didn't comply, the US could seize 30% of their US-based assets.
The results have been mostly catastrophic.
For one, FATCA didn't capture a lot of revenue for the IRS as most wealthy Americans shelter their assets domestically in trusts and LLCs.
Second, it had the effect of ruining the lives of ordinary Americans living abroad who, while by no means wealthy, were working middle class. People like myself had our bank accounts closed and were subject to being presumed money launders and tax evaders. Many expats -- including accidental Americans who only gained US nationality because they were born on US soil while their parents were on short-term work assignments -- lost their retirement accounts and mortgages.
More damningly, the US continues to refuse sharing bank account data of foreigners living in America back to their home countries, as per the agreement.
The reason for this refusal? The US government cites American banking privacy laws.
In other words, FATCA turned the US into the world's largest tax haven.
I have no doubt that the US will leverage its position as global tech leader in any data sharing deal to create a similar useless structure abound with unintended negative consequences.
[+] [-] TacticalCoder|4 years ago|reply
Yup. Many banks in the EU simply said: "Screw that, we're not complying. We just kick all the US citizens out and close their account and refuse to ever deal with any US citizen now". I've had several bankers at different banks tell me the same. Now none of them told me they were consider these accounts as belonging to tax evaders: it's just that the complexity of complying was crazy.
You see the same on some website: some sites in the US simply don't want to bother complying with EU laws, so they just give the fingers to anyone coming to the site from an IP address in the EU.
That's the thing: a state or supranational entity like the EU can come up with any law it wants, private companies in other states aren't forced to comply. They can just give the middle finger and say: "if that's how you want to play it, then your citizens are out".
[+] [-] noodlesUK|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|4 years ago|reply
Was this unintended though? Every government wants rich foreigners to park money in their shores, whether legally obtained or not. Bonus points if it is an easily seizable asset like bank accounts and property.
[+] [-] jraph|4 years ago|reply
I'd rather have data NOT transferred (AND laws to protect it, but this is moot if it is not there).
[+] [-] lumost|4 years ago|reply
It would make for a pretty big hammer, but countries could theoretically force local corporations to perform arbitrary actions on data hosted in country e.g. Shut FB down for a country, block access to hosted photos, cease providing cloud monitoring/actions for a refinery.
While historically the majority of global tech firms were headquartered in the US and the US had friendly treaty deals with most of the world. Neither of those statements seem like a sure bet in the 2030s.
[+] [-] alexfromapex|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youeseh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] labster|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Teknoman117|4 years ago|reply
Don't ask us to pass something you're not even willing to.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mc32|4 years ago|reply
Data being ‘forever’ is new and we have to find ways to address this.
Obviously we still want ‘bad guys’ caught, do that adds friction, but we also need to be wary of world wide dragnets on people outside that scope.
[+] [-] rsj_hn|4 years ago|reply
Problem being, the EU is a net exporter while the US is the world's net importer. So the US calls the shots on the trade agreement front, and everyone lines up, hat in hand, to try to sell their surplus production to the only nation willing and able to absorb it -- the U.S.
Once the EU starts running large persistent trade deficits then it can start insisting on things in trade agreements and other nations will have to give up those juicy surpluses or agree to the EU's demands. But that's not the state of the world at the moment.
[+] [-] cromwellian|4 years ago|reply
If I were in a non-Democracy then I might want my data to not only live in another country but only live there to protect me from my own country.
[+] [-] amelius|4 years ago|reply
Yes, and "opt-in" as in I send a form with my physical signature, not some EULA that I clicked sometime when I was distracted.
[+] [-] terom|4 years ago|reply
> "On the commercial side, we don't see such a big issue," she told POLITICO. "But of course, there is the issue of access to data from the national security agencies, and we have to be absolutely sure that there is no mass surveillance of data of Europeans when it travels to the U.S."
That's the exact opposite of my understanding of the status quo - mass surveillance of data of Europeans when it travels to the U.S.
I'd start with clear guarantees protecting EU data stored and processed in the EU by US companies/subsidiaries against (legal) US government/military access. I think that's the status quo assumption that companies are operating on, but it's far from clear how it actually works.
[+] [-] karlkloss|4 years ago|reply
Spys can't be trusted.
[+] [-] fnord77|4 years ago|reply
- Mark Facebook
[+] [-] robert_foss|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ginko|4 years ago|reply
edit: Unless you mean you'd still don't want any data shared with the US which I can understand.
[+] [-] callamdelaney|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmeisthax|4 years ago|reply
That's kind of just how internationalism works. It's inherently undemocratic.
If you want democratic internationalism, then what you're asking for is a federal union with total freedom of movement, no internal borders, and no unilateral exit procedure. In other words, not internationalism.
[+] [-] ovi256|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsynnott|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjt2n3904|4 years ago|reply
Delivering threats of ultimatum is not how you work together, and leads me to say -- you aren't someone I want to work with.
[+] [-] rscho|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dah00n|4 years ago|reply