Trumped up lobby group tries to get EU data protection watered down Late last week, a group labeling itself the European Data Coalition called for Europe’s planned data protection law to be watered down. In a letter to negotiators on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the group begged them to delete the so-called FISA clause (Article 43a). This rule would prevent companies from …
So the issue is that the US is charging in and bypassing the international frameworks for taking data stored in the EU, and this lobby wants to attack the EU for blocking this?
The only argument in favour of this approach seems to be "we've determined that, while you may be right here, there's a bigger bully who we're more afraid of". Given that the EU is the bigger economy than the US, you'd hope that being able to do business there would ultimately be the priority.
This puts an interesting perspective on "Ass ange(TM)" claims that he is not likely to be given a trial in Sweden. While I would have expected someone to lobby against 43a, Sweden would have been one of the last countries I would have expected to play the USA hand-puppet role.
Well, reality has proved me wrong one more time.
By unilaterally assuming universal jurisdiction, the regulation would put European companies in an unsolvable dilemma and would be in conflict with the concept of interoperability that, while recognising different privacy concepts, is necessary in international data flows.
Actually, the EU directive is designed specifically to avoid the inconsistency and ambiguity of different jurisdictions. It will make doing the right thing™ a whole lot easier. Turnkey systems will be come available and legal processes will be standardised.
Data can be processed abroad but companies will have to contract to the EU data protection standards. This might stop personal data leaking out of outsourcing companies as is currently only too often the case.
Either you choose for the EU approach, which means you side with the users, or you choose for the US approach, which means you side with the ABusers.
Not that hard a choice IMHO, and I can tell you upfront that my business will go to those who side with the users. After all, as a user I also have a self interest, and my wallet follows that closely. If your business acts in my interest, congratulations, you may have a client. If your business does not (or pretends it does, which is something I'm very good at finding out), you're welcome to the kind of clients who don't care about that, but you won't see data nor money from me. Oh, and if you follow the latter model you can't actually legally operate in the EU so you'll have to move.
There. No need to make it all so complex. Unless, of course, you have something to hide...
Historically I don't think SAP would have been too bothered, after all where their customers data is is not their problem.
Now SAP are going all out on a cloud strategy where SAP hosts, all of a sudden it can bite them on the bum rather than just their customers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
