Article also mentioned Microsoft, Skype, and Yahoo will be targeted in other countries but there was nothing about Google or Youtube. However, found this on techcrunch:
"Google and YouTube have not been included in this first round of evf complaints being as they have a different corporate structure that does not include European subsidiaries. However it notes they do have datacenters in European countries, which will give evf a route to filing Prism-related data protection complaints against both at a later date."
Forcing these companies to give data has weakened their competitiveness globally.
I am curious to see if the business case against the NSA's power will have an effect. Right now I think things favor the bureaucracy. But if Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. make a broad push against it, we could see legislative changes which protect them.
A likely scenario is something which indemnifies them against any losses incurred as a result of foreign suits related to privacy breaches, so long as they're in accordance with US law.
Google certainly appears to have at least one European subsidiary (Google UK Limited, Company #03977902) and I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't have subsidiaries in most European countries.
The lawsuit targets the Irish subsidiary because that's where the money is. If they move they will probably pay higher taxes. Quite clever!
> The group’s complaint draws on the precedent set in 2006, which found that a mass transfer of data to the US authorities was illegal under EU law... The Swift case was closed when the company moved its data centre from Belgium to Switzerland.
(a) It's not a lawsuit, but a complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, which is like a type of court. The DPC can force companies to reveal what they hold on people, and can require them to do (or not do) a thing if it breaks Irish data protection law.
(b) Facebook Ireland Ltd (an Irish company) was targetted, not because it's "where the money is", but because if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law.
This brings up an interesting issue with multinationals...
How do you react when you receive compulsory orders in one country of operation that violates laws of another?
There's a solution to that. Do not store data from a customer from one country, in another region.
Actually, the biggest european hosting company, OVH, is doing just that in order to launch in North America, and protect its European, Canadian, and USA customers:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...
Well this is going to be interesting.
And don't forget guys this is the EU we're talking about not US.
It is a lot more difficult for companies to make changes in their favor since every country has its on system and it's own ways.
Just the amount of paper pushers in Europe is exponentially higher.
Makes "convincing" any one of them less effective due to their limited power.
It's going to come down to what kind of business the Irish company carries out on behalf of the parent company or whether the Irish company is the parent. There are so many ways the relationship could be set up and figuring it all out could take a loooong time. First they have to work that out before they can determine whether they are responsible for following EU law and what laws they are obliged to follow. The Irish company may not have anything to do with data which would pretty much let them off the hook I'm guessing.
Well anyone who signs up to Facebook who's not in USA or Canada is technically signing an agreement with Facebook Ireland Ltd. So, the Irish company is responsible for the data of hundreds of millions of Facebook users.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. It's OK for the state to have 120 cameras on each street corner watching your every move (see London), but it's not OK to share your Facebook posts?
Disclaimer: I'm very much against any invasion of privacy, and am only being facetious to point out the obvious, which is that people should stand up for their rights when it becomes obvious, not just when it becomes sensational news
The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned and have no connection to the state.
The 4 million+ cameras in the UK statistic which has been floating around for about 10 years now was extrapolated from two streets in Wandsworth and was only ever really media bait. If you believed all these statistics the number of cameras in the UK would have dropped by more than half (over the past 10 years), since the last large scale estimate was under 2 million.
There is no right to privacy in public spaces and no expectation thereof either. The only thing those cameras do is replace police officers. Another thing you are also forgetting is that people were aware of those cameras the second they were installed. No secret court bullshit. With personal correspondences on the other hand, people expect the contents of their messages to be entirely private. That secrecy should only be invaded upon within the confines of a morally justifiable law, especially when a foreign agency is doing the invading.
I will point out that this complaint against Facebook was filed in Ireland with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, whereas you're talking about a different country, the UK.
I'm sorry but there is a very obvious and clear distinction between these two forms of surveillance. The first monitors public space, the second does not.
To me it is not obvious that "my rights" have been affected by the monitoring of public spaces.
itg|12 years ago
"Google and YouTube have not been included in this first round of evf complaints being as they have a different corporate structure that does not include European subsidiaries. However it notes they do have datacenters in European countries, which will give evf a route to filing Prism-related data protection complaints against both at a later date."
Forcing these companies to give data has weakened their competitiveness globally.
revscat|12 years ago
A likely scenario is something which indemnifies them against any losses incurred as a result of foreign suits related to privacy breaches, so long as they're in accordance with US law.
arethuza|12 years ago
lifeformed|12 years ago
thenewkid|12 years ago
> The group’s complaint draws on the precedent set in 2006, which found that a mass transfer of data to the US authorities was illegal under EU law... The Swift case was closed when the company moved its data centre from Belgium to Switzerland.
rmc|12 years ago
(b) Facebook Ireland Ltd (an Irish company) was targetted, not because it's "where the money is", but because if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law.
(cf. section 19 of https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms )
if_by_whisky|12 years ago
Aissen|12 years ago
Fuxy|12 years ago
tomp|12 years ago
doctorwho|12 years ago
rmc|12 years ago
(cf. section 19 of https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms )
orokusaki|12 years ago
Disclaimer: I'm very much against any invasion of privacy, and am only being facetious to point out the obvious, which is that people should stand up for their rights when it becomes obvious, not just when it becomes sensational news
hermaj|12 years ago
The 4 million+ cameras in the UK statistic which has been floating around for about 10 years now was extrapolated from two streets in Wandsworth and was only ever really media bait. If you believed all these statistics the number of cameras in the UK would have dropped by more than half (over the past 10 years), since the last large scale estimate was under 2 million.
octagonal|12 years ago
rmc|12 years ago
kjjw|12 years ago
To me it is not obvious that "my rights" have been affected by the monitoring of public spaces.
pilsetnieks|12 years ago