Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Resists US Lobbying As Privacy War Looms

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the fighting-the-good-fight dept.

EU 131

judgecorp writes "The European Commission is resisting pressure from US firms and public bodies designed to derail its privacy proposals, which include the 'right to be forgotten' that would allow users to demand their data be removed from Internet sites. Facebook and others oppose the right to be forgotten as it would interfere with their ability to market stuff at friends and connections of their users."

cancel ×

131 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201537)

The European Commission is resisting pressure from US firms and public bodies designed to derail its privacy proposals

What kind of leverage/offer do they have (particularly the US firms)

I thought you cannot bribe (erm... lobby) European politicians as directly as in US?

Re:And... (3, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201583)

What kind of leverage/offer do they have (particularly the US firms)

I thought you cannot bribe (erm... lobby) European politicians as directly as in US?

There are plenty of ways to bribe people, perhaps you would like come out to this extremely nice 5* restaurant whilst we discuss the matter. Don't forget to bring your wife/mistress too.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201611)

There are plenty of ways to bribe people, perhaps you would like come out to this extremely nice 5* restaurant whilst we discuss the matter. Don't forget to bring your wife/mistress too.

Hehe -- and if all else fails, your wife might get these mistress pictures sent to her :)

Re:And... (4, Informative)

bitingduck (810730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201641)

Hehe -- and if all else fails, your wife might get these mistress pictures sent to her :)

It's Europe - she doesn't care: Mitterand Funeral [wordpress.com]

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201667)

That's France, and they don't care...

Re:And... (2)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201907)

Not exactly. The general public doesn't care. That doesn't mean that his wife doesn't.

Re:And... (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202049)

Oh? Really? [wikipedia.org]

Re:And... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202169)

Oh? Really? [wikipedia.org]

From the cited list, how many of them lived in 20th century? What about nowadays?

Otherwise, for you to have a point, the post you are replying should have been saying "The public didn't care".

Re:And... (3, Informative)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202477)

Actually, it was in reply to the wife part. It was quite common (especially in France, but also in England and Scotland) for the king or their heir apparent to marry for political alliances but maintain a mistress (in France, sometimes more than one simultaneously). Therefore the Queens/Wives knew about it and were often quite happy with the arrangement. Frequently the mistress was given title, power in the royal court and rather luxurious lodgings. They also were often married themselves. The most famous of these is Jeanne Antoinette Poisson also known as Madame de Pompadour who had a cordial relationship with the queen of France,

Re:And... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202759)

It's not America. Here in Europe we have had centuries to turn corruption into a civil, polite art.

Re:And... (5, Insightful)

Sydin (2598829) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201613)

Exactly: after all, what is lobbying? No, the nice gentleman from facebook is not trying to buy my vote on this matter. We are simply good friends who like to take lunch together. Only I have a chronic habit of forgetting my wallet, but he's more than happy to foot the bill. He's also quite fond of my wife, and loves to treat her to the occasional gift of exquisite diamonds and spa trips. But it's okay: he never tries to influence my vote. We're just friends.

Re:And... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201635)

And this is very, very, very illegal in Europe.

Re:And... (1)

Damouze (766305) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201649)

Hell, you could probably bring them both if you wanted to. It would give them a nice leverage over you :P.

Re:And... (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201691)

There are plenty of ways to bribe people, perhaps you would like come out to this extremely nice 5* restaurant whilst we discuss the matter. We'll supply your +1.

FTFY

Re:And... (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201723)

Wife? The purchasing manager of one large European organisation expected to be provided with an escort for the evening during the monthly contract reviews. And a Japanese company decided that a particular purchasing manager needed to visit their headquarters, which included a week of touring with a nice lady companion.

Unfortunately, somewhat later, he was found out. It was probably not a good idea to mention to the competition that he was open to better offers...

Re:And... (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203055)

There are plenty of ways to bribe people, perhaps you would like come out to this extremely nice 5* restaurant whilst we discuss the matter. Don't forget to bring your wife/mistress too.

Michelin stars which are the international restaurant rating system only go up to 3. Or, at least, the highest ever given is 3.

-- please mod this as off topic, because it is. :-)

Re:And... (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42204045)

Don't bring your wife. We'll provide the mistress.

There, I think that edit would make the lobbying more effective.

Re:And... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201585)

The commission's purpose is to get bribed, parliment's purpose is to vote the bribed proposals down.

Re:And... (4, Informative)

clemdoc (624639) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201747)

Ernst Strasser, Austrian (former) MEP is just on trial for offering to sell his influence for EUR 100.000,-
Problem is, the so-called lobbyists where british journalists.
There are fine videos on youtube (he actually speaks english, ahem, sort of) as well, try to spill not your coffee though.

Re:And... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202947)

There's a good documentary on that matter called The Brussels Business. clip [youtu.be]

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42204753)

Actually the journalists offered 100 k for tabling. No one pays for tabling. That is like asking Strasser to buy poop from him for 20 million.

Re:And... (2)

Coisiche (2000870) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201931)

Sure you can.

Our politicians are just as corrupt and self-serving as yours. They just have to work within a different framework. Which they must find galling; I bet many wish they were as rich as US politicians.

Re:And... (2)

Teun (17872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202507)

When a person has certain power there will be others wanting to influence them, at some stage this could involve bribery and now we call it corruption.

In my view that chance is a little less in the EU system as there are so many parties, all with their own interests.
Parties as in members of the EU Commission and Members of the European Parliament.
The first is split up over 27 sovereign nations who all keep a very close eye on what their commissioner is doing.
The second is split over 754 MEP's representing the 27 member nations via 7-8 loose alliances by a multitude of parties.

Buying a significant influence in this system is really hard, the best a lobbyist can hope for is to get the attention of an influential member of a particular commission.

Re:And... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203245)

Ever heard of "Oil for Food"? My understanding is that while it is harder to lobby European politicians, it is trivially easy to outright bribe them with the only risk to the politician being if they fall out of favor with the powers that be and/or the establishment needs a scapegoat when some scandal blows up big enough to require the government "do something" to "address rampant corruption".

Re:And... (1)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42204279)

Our lobbyists guarantee they can train any politician in under a week at one of our exclusive clubs or yachts. And as a holiday bonus the first two family members of your politician will be accommodated and employed with you company for free.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42204719)

Generally I think when you are based in the US you should not dare to interfere in EU regulatory affairs. As simple as that.

Don't you love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201575)

all the level of lobbying the US Government does on behalf of corporations?

That alone should be a treasonable offense by public officials. String the state dept up, every single last one of them.

Re:Don't you love (2)

Dasuraga (1147871) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201643)

should be a treasonable offense by public officials. String the state dept up, every single last one of them.

please check the definition of treason in the US:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Re:Don't you love (2, Insightful)

wgoodman (1109297) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201669)

Who says that giant corporations aren't an enemy to the good of the nation? (aside from them)

Re:Don't you love (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203259)

should be a treasonable offense by public officials. String the state dept up, every single last one of them.

Please check the words written, not the words read.

Re:Don't you love (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year and a half ago | (#42205665)

Not bad but you failed in comprehension. The post on treason was not in regards to U.S. law but Europena Law. Thus the statement on treason was in reference to EU pols being strung up, which sure as hell would work in both the EU and the U.S.

Re:Don't you love (4, Interesting)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202347)

To be fair, all Governments lobby on behalf of their domestic corporations - think of all the times that politicians from the ruling party in a country go to another country and negotiate trade agreements or highlight the products and services of their domestic companies to decision-making politicians of the host country.
Heck, if politicians DID NOT do this, they would probably be accused of not doing their jobs when going abroad. Indeed, this is one of the more common roles of most diplomatic ambassadors.
(As a case in point, and granted it is not about politicians but it is close enough, the British Royal yacht Britannia was funded by the British taxpayer. When a previous Government said they wanted to stop paying for Britannia, quite a few people in British industry objected because the Royal family often used the yacht as a lobbying tool for British businesses abroad).
Certainly, when the lobbying goes beyond the "our companies offer wonderful services/products, and we can arrange tax breaks that are passed on as discounts" or "build your new manufacturing facility in my back yard, and get some very favorable terms" to "if you do not do it our way, then we will make life hard for you" then that, for me, is something the politicians and companies need to be called out on, but that is not lobbying, that is making threats.

Fuck 'em (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201595)

and fuck their ability to market stuff...

American companies... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201607)

... shouldn't be surprised to find that even with successful lobbying to get the EU's initiatives derailed, they'll suffer backlash from their European market. The cultures (yes, multiple) here, you see, are a tad different from what's accepted in USoA interstate commerce. So you can track your consumers' (because customers would have rights, whereas consumers can be, and so are, sold and bought like CDOs) every move and poke them with the most targeted adverts imaginable, down to while they're at the loo. And instead of phenomenal sales growth, you may just find they get sick of you and you start to lose against everyone who isn't quite that aggressive.

The USoA government, of course, has European governments well-cowed and will get the data anyway, but that too will, in the long run, bring more grief than joy. Not that anyone'll listen. If recent history teaches anything, it's that Americans[tm] are too full of themselves and their own petty politics (it's like that music, see? they've got gops AND dems 'round here) to listen to, nevermind respect, anyone else.

Of course, playing nice with others has never been America's strong suit, so why expect them to change now? Just ignore the buggers and hope they don't get a bug up their arses and invade you.

Ability to market (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201633)

If US corporations are worried about losing their ability to market thanks to comprehensive information on users why don't they pool together and create a non for-profit organisation called something like "transparent society" and pool all the information they would be stripped of there. They would no longer be able to sell such data but if the key argument is that losing the data outright would be detremental to marketing then every company involved stands to gain. Also, any EU regulations on the "right to be forgotten" can be no more than regulations on businesses and is unlikely to apply to such a foundation.

Re:Ability to market (4, Insightful)

enabran (1451761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201699)

Also, any EU regulations on the "right to be forgotten" can be no more than regulations on businesses and is unlikely to apply to such a foundation.

Er... no. EU powers, including in the area of data protection, do not just apply to businesses.

Re:Ability to market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202665)

!?!?

Could you please expand upon this comment?

It was my understand that the UK Data Protection Act was created/updated to comply with EU regulations and this act most assuredly DOES apply to businesses.

I'd welcome being wrong if you care to explain how.

Re:Ability to market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202753)

not just businesses

Re:Ability to market (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203181)

!?!?

Could you please expand upon this comment?

It was my understand that the UK Data Protection Act was created/updated to comply with EU regulations and this act most assuredly DOES apply to businesses.

I'd welcome being wrong if you care to explain how.

It also applies to you, and to the local sporting club/chess society/school choir you organise.

Re:Ability to market (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203429)

You could try actually reading about the act to figure out what it applies to. The second result on Google is the act itself which states that the Data Protection Act applies to all organisations, with enumerated exemptions.

Re:Ability to market (2)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201913)

This is from the 1995 law that is under change proposal. Wording about who it applies to:
From EUR-Lex [europa.eu] :

(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law;
(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;

Facebook's being stupid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201653)

Facebook's not being business smart about this. If the people operating it had any sense, they'd take a page from Brave New World. Make people not care about their privacy enough to use this right; doing this is begging the Streisand Effect to kick in. As it is, a lot of people wouldn't care already.

Re:Facebook's being stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201819)

Facebook's not being business smart about this. If the people operating it had any sense, they'd take a page from Brave New World. Make people not care about their privacy enough to use this right; doing this is begging the Streisand Effect to kick in. As it is, a lot of people wouldn't care already.

Facebook is alreadly living proof of the fact that people don't care about their privacy. Paradoxically people are surprised when I explain to them to what extent Facebook, Google and the rest of that ilk tracks their movements on the web even when they are not signed in to their services. Or that the data they put on Facebook may end up in places that they are not comfortable with, even stuff they don't expressly state online, because and there are third parties that have made a business of inferring details about their intimate private lives, such as their sexual orientation by data mining their 'likes' lists and other Facebook data.

Re:Facebook's being stupid. (4, Insightful)

Raumkraut (518382) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202261)

Facebook is alreadly living proof of the fact that people don't care about their privacy.

Most people don't care about anything, unless and until it affects them personally.
This is (in theory) why governments enact "nanny state" legislation; to prepare for, and protect its population from, bad things that those who will be affected haven't even considered yet.

Few people consider about the cost of hospitalisation after a car accident, until they're in one. Hence national health services.
Few people consider the cost of leaving embarrassing photos on Facebook, until it comes up in a job interview. Hence this legislation.

Point of view (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201681)

"The European Commission is resisting pressure from US firms and public bodies designed to derail its privacy proposals"

And that's good or bad? The EU comission is very often providing such stupid rules, that the pressure from firms (including US firms) is very often a welcome breath of fresh air...

Re:Point of view (1)

enabran (1451761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201711)

The European Commission do indeed do lots of stupid things but I think anything aimed at giving users greater privacy and control over their personal information is a good thing.

Re:Point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201847)

And that's good or bad? The EU comission is very often providing such stupid rules, that the pressure from firms (including US firms) is very often a welcome breath of fresh air...

The European Commission do indeed do lots of stupid things but I think anything aimed at giving users greater privacy and control over their personal information is a good thing.

Care to cite some examples? And more than just two or three, if the EU commission does 'lots' of stupid things composing a list of 15-20 should be a trivial task

Re:Point of view (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202005)

How much are you willing to pay?

I'll give you one for free: the original video of "Science: It's a girl thing!"

Re:Point of view (2)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202105)

I'll give you one for free: the original video of "Science: It's a girl thing!"

The execution was laughable, but that's actually a good idea imho -- IT departments could use more chicks. Plus, the laughable execution made it get more attention that it may have had otherwise, meaning that they may have gotten the message through regardless.

Re:Point of view (5, Insightful)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201993)

The European Commission do indeed do lots of stupid things but I think anything aimed at giving users greater privacy and control over their personal information is a good thing.

The EC makes shit tons of good stuff that you never hear about. A lot more than bad stuff, in fact.

The EC's biggest problem stems from EU governments that actively lobby it to pass regulations and directives on unpopular topics. Local politicians seldom mention that their great new reform is a mere transcription into local law of an EU directive (aka something they're obligated to do). In contrast, they'll sure as hell blame EU technocrats (which, incidentally, they named) for coming up with directives that force them to pass much needed yet highly unpopular reforms.

A case in point is the recent lashing out at the EU over deficit reduction. No politician gets elected in the EU by promising to axe the public sector, axe entitlement programs, raise taxes, and so on. The EU stability pact, in this light, is a blessing: they get to do all that with a convenient scapegoat. Hollande's position on it during the French presidential campaign, in this regard, was exemplary of EU demagoguery. He posed for voters, promising that he'd renegotiate the pact. Upon being elected, he quacked around for a few weeks, in an effort to disguise his pig of a bluff into a not-too-ugly princess. And, now, he can now freely blame his predecessor and the EU to pass the highly unpopular reforms that he knew were much needed from the start. (Whether he actually does remains an open question, but I'd opine that he has little choice.)

Re:Point of view (1)

Teun (17872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202359)

Well spoken, +1!

Oh yes? (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201735)

List a few of those stupid rules, that haven't been made up by bonkers Little England newspapers.

You cannot. Because they do not exist. "Welcome breath of fresh air"? Er no, the Commission has the strange idea that citizens deserve to have their rights protected more than corporations deserve the freedom to take them away. That is why the UK neocons want out of the EU: it stands up for ordinary people.

Re:Oh yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201871)

I can the - regulations for motorcycles just voted through - they haven't even written the final details they have been made "delegated acts" meaning they can be made up after the event and still have full force of law. Despite a private individual reporting the commision to it's own ombudsman for lack of a "proportionality" study and no published impact assesment and the ombudsman agreeing that the impact assement had not been done (or rather had been based on spurious data provided by a vested party) the vote went ahead anyway and it is now law that all motorcycle manufacturers have got to enact technical solutions to stop owners from modifying the powertrains of all motorcycles under about 500cc (it is actually licence category based) to change their power output or characteristics. This WILL have the effect of meaning that ou will not be able to change the sprocket ratios on a bike because you tour and want lower revs when cruising for example (something i did on my first big bike which otherwise was reving madly a lot of the time)

Re:Oh yes? (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202355)

I feel your pain, but I can also see a few benefits in that piece of regulation.

For instance, less kids would injure or kill themselves on tuned up 50cc bikes. Doing so is now illegal where I spent my youth, but back then a guy I know lost his foot at age 15; his bike went twice as fast as it originally could. A fucking life wasted to gain a few minutes per day...

The same could be said for young adults who have the lunacy of tuning their 250cc bike so it goes even faster than it already does (which is already way faster than you're allowed to drive anyway), while forgetting that they also need to give their brakes a *very* serious upgrade when doing so. Especially when they top it off by causing accidents on highways due to reckless driving.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised at all if people whose friends or family had had bike accidents were amongst the vested party. Or that more than a few commissioners and members of parliament belong to the latter group. Whoever pushed this through knew the data all too well, in the sense that they experienced the hardships associated with it -- personally. And frankly, as a parent, I'd be delighted that my kids won't be able to tune their bikes until they're several years into driving one; by then they'll hopefully know how dangerous it can be.

Re:Oh yes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202363)

The catch is that you are talking about forced labor. In other words if I own a web site I would be forced to try to find references to persons in order to remove them. Those references might be in letters to the editor or buried under a screen name that the person in question no longer even remembers using. But people who track for a living might be able to connect the dots through a couple of decades of various screen names. If I am compelled to search out such references and alter my site I am altering the history of a dialogue as well. That means that the comments of third parties might take on a negative light whereas when seen in reply to the original posts they are reasonable remarks.
                      Do we really want laws that force some people to diligently labor for free and also alter social history? I think not.

Re:Oh yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202735)

"Do we really want laws that force some people to diligently labor for free and also alter social history?"

Yes.

Re:Oh yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202745)

You are wrong, but maybe you're right.

It seems to be more like "you have an account that belongs to me and contains data that you allow others to look through or not. Please delete it and all the data so that there is no longer anything for you to sell or share or look through."

I don't think it has anything to do with what data has gotten out of your account such as messages to others or already existing scavenged data that advertisers have taken.

Obviously they can sell backups of the data created one minute before deletion from their subsidiary, And they can purchase data back from a company that already scavenged it. There are a multitude of holes in this whole idea which is why I don't think very much thought was put into this whole process.

I think that the scaremongering tactics that companies use should be learned by the other side in this issue.

Re:Oh yes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202373)

The UK neocons want out of the EU precisely because it's made up of twats like you.

Re:Oh yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42204645)

The UK neocons want out of the EU precisely because it's made up of twats like you.

We Continental Europeans would love to let go of the UK.
You're nothing but party poopers, and the US of A trojan's horse..
Lets see you rejoin the US of A as the 52 nd state, right after Puerto Rico.

Re:Oh yes? (1)

deanklear (2529024) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202427)

It's sad but true. Much of the developed world operates under the radical assumption that human rights are more important than the unrestricted pursuit of capital by corporations. It appears to be a cultural defect we inherited from the British Empire.

Re:Oh yes? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202529)

Well said, the point that betrays this fact is that any time you hear the likes of UKIP or the Tory party's furthest right elements talking about getting out of the EU, or pulling powers back the absolute first example they cite is the 48hr working limit opt-out.

This benefits absolutely no one except exploitative corporations - because it's an opt-out workers are freely able to work more than 48hrs a week if they choose to, it just stops employers forcing people to work more than 48hrs a week on average if the worker does not want to.

I was listening to Nigel Farage on Sunday Politics the other week and his economic plan is simply scary as hell. Effectively he accepts that pulling out of the EU will cost us trade and cause billions in lost income to are economy, but the way he believes we'll make this up is by the reduction in red tape allowing companies to increase output. In other words, he imagines the UK becoming a country where workers are forced to become sweatshop workers that are made to work long hours for extremely low wages and that this will somehow create a massive increase in industrial output to match the massive loss in sales to Europe.

It truly is disturbing what British neocons imagine for our country and the scary thing is that support amongst the ignorant in our society for this sort of thing is growing. If these people were to ever gain power then the absolute first thing I would do is leave and go to a more sane country like Canada, New Zealand, or somewhere else in Europe. If people like Farage think that people like me, who earn and hence contribute far more than the average citizen are going to stick around and work 100 hour weeks for literally no other reason than him being able to revel in his little xenophobic fantasy of leaving Europe, then they have another thing coming. They will turn the UK into a 3rd world sweatshop, but maybe that's their plan- so they can benefit from cheap labour and run abusive warehouses to make themselves rich. If that were to ever happen, and people like me were to live, then all the uneducated gullable fucks who voted for it can sit in their sweatshops with no life, and no hope whilst the rest of us have fucked off elsewhere. Of course, they wont be able to follow us out the door, because they're not smart enough to offer anything other countries would want so they'll get exactly what they deserve.

Again, I can't believe there are people who actually support that sort of shit. Farage himself admits that removal of workers rights is a priority for him, and there's literally no other reason to want that other than if you intend to exploit workers.

Re:Oh yes? (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42205779)

I was listening to Nigel Farage on Sunday Politics the other week and his economic plan is simply scary as hell. Effectively he accepts that pulling out of the EU will cost us trade and cause billions in lost income to are economy, but the way he believes we'll make this up is by the reduction in red tape allowing companies to increase output. In other words, he imagines the UK becoming a country where workers are forced to become sweatshop workers that are made to work long hours for extremely low wages and that this will somehow create a massive increase in industrial output to match the massive loss in sales to Europe.

Well, if the UK is truly that far gone due to the nefarious workings of the EU, you might as well bite the bullet before withdrawing from the EU means roots and grubs.

Personally, I can't help but think that there's a happy medium where you have access to the EU's market, but not the bullshit that comes with full EU membership. Friends with benefits. Switzerland and Norway probably have figured that out and maybe the UK ought to study that.

My view is that while Nigel Farage is probably one of the best political options out there for the UK, there's too many Brits either afraid of "sweat shops", "long hours", and all that 19th century crap or angling for some free lunch from Big Brother for him to be more than a minority leader. Oh, it'll make it easier for my country's self-maimed economy (the US) to compete.

Re:Point of view (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42203125)

"The European Commission is resisting pressure from US firms and public bodies designed to derail its privacy proposals"

And that's good or bad? The EU comission is very often providing such stupid rules, that the pressure from firms (including US firms) is very often a welcome breath of fresh air...

Spoken like a true Englishman....

GO EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201695)

Don't fall under the Corporative pressure!!

The only problem is... (1, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201717)

That there is no single "Internet" from which to delete the data. We are talking about a network that contains billions of nodes, any one of which can cache the data, and may do so without even knowing that they are doing so. It's basically a public space.

Re:The only problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201739)

We are talking about a network that contains billions of nodes, any one of which can cache the data, and may do so without even knowing that they are doing so.

Off the top of my head this wasn't a proposal where a citizen could say "I want to be forgotten from the internet" and all of a sudden every machine on the planet has to wipe the persons data. The proposal was to let a citizen turn to a specific company and say "get rid of all your data on me". That reduces the biollions of nodes to however many storage-capable machines an organisation has (which is probably still a large number, but it's better than billions).

Re:The only problem is... (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201759)

I don't know where you got the impression that this was about a right to completely scrub oneself from every server on the internet with a magic button. It's about the right to tell a web site, to which you have previously provided information, that it must remove that information.

Re:The only problem is... (1)

BLAG-blast (302533) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201835)

It's about the right to tell a web site, to which you have previously provided information, that it must remove that information.

Well, some people think it's the right to censor the web. I.e tell Google to forget everything you know about me, including the links to the news sites detailing how I stole money from people, etc... The right to be forgot isn't about deleting data from facebook, it's about erasing mistakes and shady backgrounds. I am pro-privacy, but anti-right-to-forgotten.

On the other hand, if it is about deleting data *you* uploaded to a site/service, how about just using sites/services which up front offer a "delete all me data" option?

Re:The only problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201865)

On the other hand, if it is about deleting data *you* uploaded to a site/service, how about just using sites/services which up front offer a "delete all me data" option?

The problem there is that you rarely know if the "delete all my data" option exists or not before you sign up.

Re:The only problem is... (0)

BruceCage (882117) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201921)

If it's not obvious, don't sign up.

Re:The only problem is... (1)

l3v1 (787564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202661)

"If it's not obvious, don't sign up."

Well, that's exactly the most important point in question. I mean, now, a US company, like Facebook for example, can say one day in their terms of service, that they keep all collected data private and never give it to anyone. Then, a week later, they can change the terms of service, and give it to everyone. Plus, you can't ever ask them to delete your account and associated collected data. If proper regulation would be in place so that they should comply with your deletion request or be fined, then they would - hopefully - comply. IMHO it's simple: there should be proper regulations empowering everyone to have control about how data collected about them can be handled, propagated, sold, exploited, etc.

Re:The only problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42203513)

Ok *misses out on everything*

Re:The only problem is... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201879)

You are reading too much into this. It is about a single website having to delete your information. There are already existing laws preventing them from sharing the data. If you have made the information public already, then it is public, but a lot of private information provided to companies are not public.

Re:The only problem is... (1)

Bomazi (1875554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202099)

In other news, some people are wrong. The right to be forgotten is the obligation, for providers of web services, to provide an option to delete you account and erase the personal information they have about you. No more no less.

I agree that this right is poorly named though.

Re:The only problem is... (1)

fgouget (925644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202707)

On the other hand, if it is about deleting data *you* uploaded to a site/service, how about just using sites/services which up front offer a "delete all me data" option?

Except that currently the Delete button may not really do all [mashable.com] that [arstechnica.com] much [zdnet.com] . And to me this what all this is about.

Re:The only problem is... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203301)

Well, as I told you, it's not about doing the first thing at all, and never has been, and it is about obliging web sites to provide the second thing, and successfully follow through if they provide it.

Re:The only problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202217)

I don't know where you got the impression that this was about a right to completely scrub oneself from every server on the internet with a magic button. It's about the right to tell a web site, to which you have previously provided information, that it must remove that information.

And now for just $1/year, you can become a member of my service which will submit your name to be forgotten to the top 1000 websites on an annual basis.

Yes, its true.. its a smashing success.. I have 900000 subscribers now..

Re:The only problem is... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203323)

I dare say that with Mechanical Turk and a set of data protection form letters you could actually make a pretty profitable real-world business out of that.

Re:The only problem is... (2)

Teun (17872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201767)

For the organisations and companies involved this information equals capital and they will know quite well where to find it and who has access to the data.

According to EU law personal information will always remain the property of the individual, something companies and organisations operating in the EU are well aware of.

When the owner of said data sends you a take down request you have to comply, no ifs and buts.

Re:The only problem is... (0)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202675)

+1 Informative

Re:The only problem is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201841)

I'm pretty sure that many of the billions of nodes are server or services owned and managed by a legal or natural person.

The law in EU intend to make possible for you to say to a specific legal or natural person to delete the data about you from their server or service. IANAL but I'm pretty sure in EU you own the data about you.

Once you own the data about you (as in EU) ask someone to delete it is nothing more that ask to return your possession to you. Of course if you received any service in exchange of providing the data it could be terminated but in EU the data about you is not something that can be irrevocably parted from you (like e.g. money).

hmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42201779)

Fuck you America...from sea to shining sea

How "forgotten" are we talking here? (-1, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42201863)

I'd imagine it's "no access for private business, but indefinite retention for State purposes".

The thought of the EUSSR allowing worker units to hide their activities is just hilarious.

Re:How "forgotten" are we talking here? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202073)

Even here in our corrupt little corner of Europe, multiple governmental projects (like CCTVs) have been struck down by our National Commission for Data Protection, and the Data Protection Act covers police forces as well.

But even if it only applied to businesses, it'd still be much better than the status quo in almost anywhere else.

Re:How "forgotten" are we talking here? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42202713)

I'm pretty sure there are some exceptions. Otherwise, if the police catches a criminal, the criminal could just demand that the police erases all information they have about him ...

Re:How "forgotten" are we talking here? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203335)

If he asks them to destroy the CCTV tape of the crime because it personally identifies him, hasn't he just identified himself as the perpetrator of the crime?

That's some zen shit maxwell.

Re:How "forgotten" are we talking here? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203631)

I said the Act covered police forces, I didn't say it applies exactly the same rules.

Privacy war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42202557)

How about.... We get our privacy, OR there is war.(?)

Not the PR friendly kind either, nor the kind favorable to the 1%.

captcha: damage

The right to be forgotten (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203213)

The right to be forgotten is no right at all. What you are talking about is making others forcibly forget.

Re:The right to be forgotten (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203283)

The right to be forgotten is no right at all. What you are talking about is making others forcibly forget.

You say "others" but this isn't about "others", this is about websites, corporations, and other legal fictions.

Re:The right to be forgotten (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42203389)

Yes, the same websites that we "others" all use to keep informed. Force that website to "forget" something, and you're taking away my right to be informed.

Re:The right to be forgotten (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42204317)

Yes, the same websites that we "others" all use to keep informed. Force that website to "forget" something, and you're taking away my right to be informed.

This is not about forcing people to take down information about you they have gathered and put up in pursuit of truth or justice or what have you. This is about forcing people to take down information about you that you have input to the site. It's a statement that personal information that you input still belongs to you. The laws regarding libel and free speech still vary from nation to nation.

Re:The right to be forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42204973)

So, if you walk up to me in the street and tell me you're from Ohio, then later you regret that decision, do you have the right to come tell me "Forgot that I live in Ohio, and do it NOW?" If I'm not a 'legal fiction' but just a single person with a website, and you put into the website that you're from Ohio, how is that any different? I don't think you've made a very good argument that tacking "on the internet" deserves any special protection here.

Re:The right to be forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42205027)

This is about forcing people to take down information about you that you have input to the site.

Which is not a right, but forceful coercion.

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not some libertarian who hates all forms of coercion and thinks it's all evil socialism. I'm just saying let's be honest about what we're trying to do: (as you say) forcing others to do what we want them to do.

Bribing is illegal in Europe unlike US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42204235)

Bribing/lobbying is illegal in Europe unlike US. People there punish their politicians for accepting bribes. That is why they get a better living experience.

The "Right" to be forgotten? (0)

miltonw (892065) | about a year and a half ago | (#42204959)

Companies are fighting against this "right" because:
1. It is completely impossible to implement.
2. The burden of attempting to implement is is onerous.
3. Shifting the liability from those who actually have and publish the information to those who only link to it is just wrong.
4. If the data is true, what legal "right" exists to remove it?
5. Existing laws and agreements covering defamation already exist for instances of false information.
6. In many cases, the information was created and/or released by the person themselves -- but they later regret. Sorry, too bad. It's called responsibility for your own actions. Deal with it.

I have often wished I could get a "do over" in life -- but I've never considered that I actually had the right to it.

How would this be implemented? How about people who have the same name? How about variant spellings like "Rob", "Bob", "Bobby", "Robbie", "Bobbie", "Robert", etc.? What if the person only wants "that" video removed? How about photos and videos with no names attached but with identifiable faces? The problems with this "right" are infinite.

To claim that opponents are only upset because of ad revenue is a stupid claim and a complete red herring.

well (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about a year and a half ago | (#42204997)

Maybe they finally wizened up to the fact that you don't have to spy on people, companies do that for you, so therefore you just have to stimulate business, I mean pay for that data.

People don't realize how important Brussels is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42205247)

For a start Brussels is four capital at once (capital of Belgium, capital of the region of Brussels (!), capital of the region of Flanders (really, because they preferred to pick Brussels instead of Anvers and, more importantly, the de facto capital of Europe).

There's more money spent on lobbyism in Brussels than in the U.S.

All the parasites' first choice is to come work to Brussels for the european institutions (EC, EP, Council, etc.). When they fail at that the second best choice is to try to go work lobbies. There are countless job offers, it's crazy.

The bureaucracy is rampant and bribery happens daily... It's really a sad state of (eurocratic) affair.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>