back to article Want to self-certify for Safe Harbor? Never mind EU, yes we can

Despite Europe’s highest court ruling it invalid a week ago, the US Department of Commerce is still implementing so-called “Safe Harbor” arrangements, and directing any questions about the whole sorry business to its European cousins. On its website the department maintains that despite “the current rapidly changing …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Listen carefully

    The message to our partners in the US that they must change and deliver on essentially equivalent data protection in their legal system, including for EU citizens

    The deafening roar you hear are the afterburners on the pig squadron that just took off in the middle of a blizzard in the 9th circle of hell. The rest of the noise is coming from Lucipher who is snowploughing the runway.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Listen carefully

      So how do we have a safe harbor deal with the UK, France, Germany and keep a straight face?

      1. Mephistro Silver badge

        Re: Listen carefully

        Upvoted, but with a small caveat:

        After the ECJ ruling regarding Safe Harbour agreements, similar cases regarding internal treatment of data have lots more chances to succeed. The rise in public awareness on these issues will also put pressure in European governments to clean their act.

        This is a war, and an important battle has been won. The war is far from over, though.

        Oh, and the enemy is not just the USA govt.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up

          Re: Listen carefully

          "The rise in public awareness on these issues will also put pressure in European governments to clean their act."

          THIS!^

          "This is a war, and an important battle has been won. The war is far from over, though."

          THIS^ TOO!

          "SAFE HARBOR II - The lie will never die" is already underway: "The second-best option is a re-negotiated *arrangement*, said Oettinger, for once sticking to the Commission official line."

          "Oh, and the enemy is not just the USA govt."

          Exactly: Does anyone believe that the for over a decade the EU failed to comprehend that "Safe[sic] Harbor" is a sham? While all along using it as a blanket rebuff against data protection complaints against US corporations? This was a fraud committed by the EU against its own laws and people.

          1. dan1980

            Re: Listen carefully

            @AC

            "Does anyone believe that the for over a decade the EU failed to comprehend that "Safe[sic] Harbor" is a sham?"

            Well, it depends what you mean by "the EU". The EU itself, as in the governing body has repeatedly made noises about this but the members themselves have, largely, ignored that. This ruling now make it very clear and very public that those member governments can no longer just ignore the problem.

  2. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Albrecht has no hope to get the US to enact a data protection system. Terrorists you know. Big businesses making money from personal data slurping you know.

  3. Len

    Who cares?

    Who cares what the ill-informed opinion of some US department is? Either you stop breaking the law or you cease trading.

    We just made sure to choose a hoster which guarantees us they don't store our data outside of the EU. Job done. Don't tell me billion dollar can companies such as Facebook are technically not able to operate within the law. Operating within the law is part of doing business. Of course, any business can, at times, sail close to the wind. However, having a business model reliant on knowingly breaking the law is not called a business, it's called a criminal organisation.

    1. David Knapman

      Re: Who cares?

      Until the Microsoft Dublin case is sorted, hosting within the EU is still no protection if the parent company is US based.

      1. Len

        Re: Who cares?

        Fair point. Not a problem in our case but to be on the safe side you shouldn't use American businesses to store your data. Nice message the US government is sending out, "don't buy American".

        It's no wonder Silicon Valley is up in arms on this topic.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Who cares?

        "Until the Microsoft Dublin case is sorted, hosting within the EU is still no protection if the parent company is US based."

        What are you on about? The little US vs MS charade is about attempting to legalise sequestering "private" data from the EU into the US "legal" system: police investigations, court evidence, etc. It is completely unrelated to "protection"/security/sovereignty of data which do not exist now and will continue to not exist regardless of whether or not the US allows itself to publicly flaunt expatriate-data in its courts.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: Who cares?

          The MS Dublin case has everything to do with sovereignty of data. Does the US legal system have unfettered access to the data or does it have to make a request to the relevant EU country's legal system, showing just cause, etc...

          As for doing something about the alphabet agencies, at the very least that would require hosting within the EU. In the not very remote possibility that the EU doesn't require hosting within the EU, a safe harbour agreement which means that the US legal system has to ask would still make building up parallel cases difficult.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Who cares?

            >"The MS Dublin case has everything to do with sovereignty of data."

            I think you're still confusing sovereignty and public disclosure.

            >"Does the US legal system have unfettered access to the data[1] or does it have to make a request to the relevant EU country's legal system[2], showing just cause, etc..."

            The US/MS game is US legal system trying to award itself blessing to admit EU data without creating new legislation to that effect.

            [1] Yes! Of course it does and of course it will continue. The US TLAs provide it from their international mass surveillance. The US police agencies then set about attempting to fabricate compelling fit-ups to effect what they refer to as "justice" based on that illegal data which they can't reveal - a process they call "parallel construction."

            [2] This is about that current inadmissibility problem. A problem for US police agencies which are often incapable of forming a real case even after they've been told the answers. To publicly advertise that data in courts it would have to appear legally obtained and not advertise contempt for the host nations' laws. Guess what the fundamental source of the "intelligence" guiding the targeting of those warrants would continue to be? Hint: [1]

            Point [1] proves there's no sovereignty/privacy. Point [2] is an internal procedural matter of the US's legal system: further proving there's no sovereignty/privacy for EU data within the US. Just procedural inconvenience.

            All a win against MS would (and is intended to) achieve is to remove "parallel construction" from trials (and inconveniences like cross-examination, reasonable doubt, etc...) where it is vulnerable criminal perjury and hide the process safely away as the "evidence" behind a warrant application... thus allowing the illegally obtained secret real evidence to be legally re-obtained for use in court.

    2. Paul Shirley

      Re: Who cares?

      They cannot comply because the US insists any citizen, corporation or entity of any kind that trades in or with the US is covered by US law, that US citizens are always caught by it wherever they are. If 'billion dollar' US companies do the only remotely plausible thing and separate into legally different EU and US companies with no US citizens abroad they'll still struggle to cut enough perceived ties to stop the US continuing to harass them.

      The US doesn't believe anyone is safe from their justice. Most of the rest of us don't believe their justice is fair or proportionate enough.

    3. theOtherJT

      Re: Who cares?

      Either you stop breaking the law or you cease trading.

      Yes, but when the business is big enough the line between law and "corporate practice" can get remarkably blurry. There's going to be a lot of very large businesses who are extremely worried that this might harm their bottom line, and as such they'll be pushing to get the law changed to minimise the damage, and whose law do they think they'll have a better chance of changing? The EU's or the Americans?

      1. Nigel 11

        Re: Who cares?

        whose law do they think they'll have a better chance of changing? The EU's or the Americans?

        Old philosophy question: what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object? In the domain of mutually incompatible laws, we may be about to find out.

        Forget the EU - how are US companies going to operate China / India / Brazil, once the implications of this little USA-EU kerfuffle get noticed?

        1. theOtherJT

          Re: Who cares?

          @Nigel 11:

          "The unstoppable force stops. The immovable object moves"

          Ian Banks: Walking on glass

          ;)

        2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          Re: the implications of this little USA-EU kerfuffle

          I seriously doubt China will bend over and let itself get hoovered by Uncle Sam like the EU did.

          As far as surveillance is concerned, the NSA has nothing to teach them, and if their attitude toward Google and Facebook is anything to go by, the US government will be treading lightly when it comes to negociating data exchange with them.

          Besides, the US has no big stick to bring to the Chinese negociation table, unlike Europe where Uncle Sam basically expects the drinks to be a gratuity on the tab.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: the implications of this little USA-EU kerfuffle

            "Uncle Sam basically expects the drinks to be a gratuity on the tab."

            It's time to change those expectations.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trying for the Nixon prize?

    Interesting response to a whistle blower uncovering an intergovernmental criminal fraud against the people of the EU: keep on peddling the fraud.

    Is there some sort of "Nixon award" for the most corrupt and dishonest government? I wonder what the prize i$...

    1. Ru'

      Re: Trying for the Nixon prize?

      "Is there some sort of "Nixon award" for the most corrupt and dishonest government? I wonder what the prize i$..."

      Of course there is, but there's no award ceremony nor limited range of prizes. Otherwise why be dishonest and corrupt in the first place?

      1. John G Imrie Silver badge

        The Nixon prize?

        There is only one prize, that is being the government tomorrow.

        1. Mark 85 Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: The Nixon prize?

          A pity... I was hoping the winner would get all the current crop of Presidential candidates and also the current incumbent as a booby prize.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cloud CRM providers

    International cloud CRM providers are trying to get UK companies to sign a new contract absolving them of legal liability!

    1. Steve Gill

      Re: Cloud CRM providers

      You can't absolve someone of legal liability.

      That's like shooting someone and then saying you're not guilty because your mate Jim said it was OK.

      1. auburnman

        Re: Cloud CRM providers

        A ton of clauses in contracts are so no-no that they are automatically null and void; they're not there to stand up in court, they are there to make the contract signee think 'Shit, they've got it signed in writing that I agreed to this, suing won't work.'

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Pint

        Re: Cloud CRM providers

        "You can't absolve someone of legal liability."

        You're free to implicate yourself in the crime and prove conspiracy by trying to do so, if you like.

        A killer producing a document signed by Jim stating "It's OK to shoot my mother-in-law cos she's a bitch" would be Darwin award wining evidence at her murder trial.

        1. Nigel 11

          Re: Cloud CRM providers

          "You can't absolve someone of legal liability."

          IANAL but I think you can in civil law. Specifically, if (a) the law is untested or unclear and (b) the punishment is a fine of limited size.

          I've just bought a house. My lawyer insisted on indemnity insurance concerning the loft conversion, because no record of the planning permission could be found. So in the unlikely event that the council (a) notices, (b) cares, (c) proves that planning permission was actually necessary and (d) declines to provide it retrospectively, there's an insurance company on the hook. (The building consents issued by the same council were fine, but apparently a council can issue building consents and then insist that you knock a house down because it didn't have planning permission. Boggle! )

          1. Anonymous Coward
            WTF?

            Re: Cloud CRM providers

            You suggesting that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is an untested and unclear civil regulation Nigel?

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Cloud CRM providers

              "You suggesting that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is an untested and unclear civil regulation Nigel?"

              Actually I think the OP was unclear as to what these clauses said.

              If the alleged clauses are telling the CRM companies customers that they're at their own risk as far as damages and the customer agrees I can't see that being illegal.

              If they say "we're no longer certifying Safe Harbour" it would appear to be a no-op because the ECJ has pretty well said it doesn't exist anyway and the customer has problems vis a vis their data subjects and their regulators.

              If they're repudiating model clauses and the customer accepts then the customer is similarly in trouble but then even if the model clauses were still in place they could still be in trouble once a data subject takes another trip to the ECJ.

        2. Mark 85 Silver badge

          @AC -- Re: Cloud CRM providers

          It would also get Jim a charge and conviction on "accessory to murder" at the least.

    2. Paul Shirley

      Re: Cloud CRM providers

      @AC You missed the point: the EU is trying to trick EU citizens into believing their 'model contracts' are legal and enforceable. Model Contracts just as illegal as safe harbour.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Cloud CRM providers

      This should be a wake-up for their customers. It's reminding them that if any data loss occurs in the US they're solely responsible to the data subjects. But if they (the EU customers) were relying on Safe Harbour then that's already gone; as soon as any data subject takes it up with the relevant regulator they should expect to find themselves in trouble. And if they're relying on some model clauses or the like then such a move would repudiate those so again they'd be in trouble.

  6. Mephistro Silver badge
    Pint

    Dear fellow commentards:

    After reading most of the comments in this thread, I feel smarter. Thank you all!

    P.d.: No brown noseing, I swear it!. XD

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Alien

      Re: Dear fellow commentards:

      WTF? Who the hell downvoted that?

      1. John G Imrie Silver badge

        Who the hell downvoted that?

        two people who subconsciously added 'than you' after ' I feel smarter.'

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Dear fellow commentards:

        El'reg's law - any sufficiently sincere compliment is indistinguishable from sarcasm

        1. Mephistro Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Dear fellow commentards:

          Sorry, my fault. My comment could be understood as the exact opposite of what I really meant.

          Most of the comments in this thread have been informative, well written and sometimes funny too. I've seen many different wiewpoints on the issue, and almost without exception I've to agree with them. I know more about the issue thanks to this thread. Thank you all, again.

          This round is also on me!

          1. moiety

            Re: Dear fellow commentards:

            Must admit -this being El Reg and all- I read it as the sarcastic version initially; but realised the statement could be interpreted either way.

            Mind you downvotes here don't seem to carry the same sting as on some other places on the net...anything above 3 (3 being possibly shills and/or grudge match) I always take as "You might want to go over your working out again, mate"; as opposed to "We think you're a twat".

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Joke

              Re: Dear fellow commentards:

              "I always take as "You might want to go over your working out again, mate"; as opposed to "We think you're a twat"."

              You poor naïve twat.

              1. moiety

                Re: Dear fellow commentards:

                Very good.

                :)

  7. Tikimon Silver badge
    FAIL

    EU businesses: PLEASE STOP SHARING WITH THE US, STAT!

    I live here, and I mean it. Because nothing meaningful will change unless it starts to seriously hurt a lot of companies' bottom lines.

    Outrage gets nothing done. Lost business and cash does. As long as it's more profitable to gleefully gobble the whole world's "personal" data, it will be done. When it's better business sense to honor privacy and personal rights, it MIGHT get done that way.

    1. Paul Shirley

      Re: EU businesses: PLEASE STOP SHARING WITH THE US, STAT!

      I think what you really mean: nothing will happen until bribing,suing and/or blackmailing the US government to change costs less than US companies lose on EU trade.

      But you're right, while US politicians are pretty cheap to buy, over here we still need to raise the costs till US companies feel compelled to actually start buying votes.

      1. Tikimon Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: EU businesses: PLEASE STOP SHARING WITH THE US, STAT!

        No, sorry. I meant exactly what I said the first time. No need to put words in my mouth, I can think for myself.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: EU businesses: PLEASE STOP SHARING WITH THE US, STAT!

        >?I think what you really mean: nothing will happen until the USA suggests that a trade war might be bad. Then some US corporations invite a few Eu politicians on a fact finding month in Hawaii and offer them directorships. Then suddenly the ruling will be over turned and a safe harbor reinstalled

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: EU businesses: PLEASE STOP SHARING WITH THE US, STAT!

      "Because nothing meaningful will change"

      Things have changed. Data subjects of EU companies can, with a reasonable expectation of success, start raising cases with their data regulators if thay (the companies) rely on Safe Harbour. And although the model clauses fig leaf may require another trip to the ECJ they're likely to fail as well.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: EU businesses: PLEASE STOP SHARING WITH THE US, STAT!

        "Things have changed. Data subjects of EU companies can, with a reasonable expectation of success, start raising cases..."

        And just how long do you expect that to last? The commission has already signalled that "Safe [sic joke] Harbour II" is in the works. There'll be a replacement fraud in place long before a single one of those cases grinds its way to judgement.

    3. LittleOldMe

      Re: EU businesses: PLEASE STOP SHARING WITH THE US, STAT!

      When life hands you lemons......

      "I live here, and I mean it. Because nothing meaningful will change unless it starts to seriously hurt a lot of companies' bottom lines"

      The policy of the company is irrelevant. The US government make the laws US companies comply with. You can boycott them all you like, the NSA won't care. The only people who are going to lose out are those doing the boycotting.

      That might seems unfair. Welcome to reality. The only sensible course of action is to accept that it is what it is.

      Lemonade anyone?

  8. SJG

    Microsoft in an imossible position

    The MS Dblin case seems simple to me.

    A US court has decided that Microsoft must provide information that it holds about a US citizen. The court doesn't care where that data is held. This is, in fact, right and proper.

    However, Microsoft has the relevant data held in Dublin, and under Irish law Microsoft can't release data about an individual (whatever their nationality) without the data owner's permission or an Irish court order. This is also right and proper.

    So, this is courts and jurisdictions working quite correctly. The underlying problem is that there is no international agreement about what should happen in this situation. Microsoft either breaks Irish law, or it commits contempt of court in the US for not providing the data.

    If you think of an analogy, say Microsoft had printouts of the data but no electronic copy, the situation would actually be exactly the same, so this is not just a technology problem. This is a very similar issue (but not exactly the same) to the Swiss banks providing lists of offshore account holders who may be avoiding tax.

    Just to be clear, if this was an Irish company, and Irish citizen with the data held in Ireland, and the original court action was happening in an Irish court, then the data would already have been handed over to the court through an Irish court order.

    So at the core, this isn't about an individuals protection per se, it's about what should happen when the jurisdiction of a national court has an international impact and where there is no clear legal framework to decide what decision should be taken.

  9. LittleOldMe
    FAIL

    Realism vs Idealism

    I think it is fair to say that most Europeans take a fairly dim view of many US policies. Gun control, waterboarding, the inability to get behind a good health care system and, yes, data protection laws. But EU and the US do share a belive in freedom. And the US should be free to make its own laws without coercion from the EU or anyone else. If they think guns are a good idea ( I think it's crazy ) then that is up to them. The EU has no right to tell the US what its laws should be, and even the most casual observer would see that even if they did have a right, they have no mechanism to enforce it.

    In an ideal world, everyone would agree. In the real world, they don't. And above all things we should respect people's freedom to choose their own government and their own laws and then agree to disagree.

    Given that the EU has no power (or right) to enforce EU law on the US, the EU are left with a choice. Do trade with the US or don't. Many have commented that EU companies should not use US providers. Easy to say, but harder to implement, because there are no good EU alternatives to Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon etc. In the real world, dropping Safe Harbor is the same as outlawing cloud computing. EU companies will suffer badly as key IT systems get switched off, with only less functional and hugely more expensive solutions to replace them. Many will not survive that and many jobs will be lost. The NSA however will not care at all.

    Dropping Safe Harbor might seem like a good idealism. But the reality is that it will hurt EU business badly and it will achieve nothing. The US electorate do not care what the Eurocrats think and if the EU want to turn off business critical IT systems.... well I am sure they will think that is as dumb as we think US gun laws are.

    The EU needs to adopt a more realistic and less idealistic position, enable Safe Harbor mk 2 and lets get on with business. People's jobs depend on it.

    Perhaps Max could just 'unfriend' NSA :)

  10. Mephistro Silver badge
    Mushroom

    "The EU has no right to tell the US what its laws should be"

    You mean, as the USA is trying to do with TTIP and similar pacts, i.e. forcing down their throats a trade agreement that will give effective control of the European Economy to big American companies? Those laws that say than national laws can be challenged before an arbitration system by any company that considers said national laws harm the company's profitability?

    Or perhaps you meant the way the USA obeys other countries Laws, which basically can be described as "They wipe their arses with foreign laws". And they do the same even with allied/friendly/democratic countries laws.

    No, the ECJ isn't trying to tell the US what their laws should be. The ECJ is trying to have European laws that protect and uphold EU citizens rights, and both the USA govt. and USAian companies DON'T WANT THAT!

    The comment's icon is a reference to possible consequences.

    1. LittleOldMe

      Many thanks to Mephistro for the comments. I think you illustrate my point perfectly.

      I agree with you entirely that the US policy on this and many other things, suck. I think other behaviours around guantanamo, gun control and indeed the indiscriminate breaking of other countries laws (hacking Angela Merkel's phone spring to mind) are way worse than lack of privacy laws. We should object. And we do. But two wrongs don't make a right.

      The idea that we can make this right by banning Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc from trading in the EU won't work. It won't hurt the US government or the NSA. It will hurt the EU.

      Many EU companies use systems like MS 365, Google For Work, and AWS to run business critical services. There are entire industries built up around cloud computing and social media. Banning US companies from operating in the EU will mean those industries will disappear in Europe. So will the jobs attached to them.

      In addition no EU companies will have access to IT tools available to non EU companies, putting the EU at a competitive disadvantage against the US and the rest of the world. Which in turn means less jobs and less tax to support the social endeavours we all want, like schools and hospitals. The idea that this only affects the Fat Cats is nonsense. Real, everyday working people stand to lose their incomes.

      Never mind the ideals, the loss of Safe Harbor will be very bad news for the people of Europe.

      Ideal it is not. Real it is.

      1. Mephistro Silver badge

        So your point is that...

        ... Europe will be sent back into the dark ages for not being able to use Office365 and similar crap? Or, Windows 10? LOL

        Nah, Mr. LittleOldYou, what's going to happen is that these American companies will need to establish 'independent' subsidiaries in Europe, with their systems and management insulated from the American company, and operating totally under European legislation. Either that or others will be the first to fill that niche and leave them out in the cold.

        The American companies are saying that Europe has to put the American interests before the rights of European citizens!. Here in Europe It will be a tough sell, methinks. Extremely costly in political terms for any European politician trying to promote the American interests. Very beneficial in political terms for emergent political parties that want to be seen protecting their citizens rights.

        And the amount of derision and thunderous laughter that the references to "Safe Harbour 2.0: It lives!" attract in technical forums like this hints strongly that EU politicians won't be able to pull that particular rabbit from their hat.

      2. Tom -1

        @LittleOldMe

        I think you are missing three points here:

        1) The USA entered into an agreement that it would provide a certain degree of protection to personal data. Clearly it never had any attention of doing that, and was behaving dishonestly to enable American companies to get business in the EU. Of course everyone should be fully aware that the USA regards international obligations that it agrees to as not worth a sheet of toilet paper (I predicted years ago in several forums that safe-harbour would be declared illegal by the ECJ). It's clear that the CEC knew that the data wouldn't be protected and the commissioners who rubber-stamped the deal were doing a pretty good emulation of America's version of "honest dealing", but that doesn't negate the fact that the government of the USA has been totally dishonest in its dealings with this agreement from beginning to end. So why should Europe want to trade with it in anything where trust is needed?

        2) Various American companies operate in EU countries; to do that, they are required to conform to the laws of those countries just as a European company which operates in the USA is required to conform to the laws of the USA. Doing business in Germany requires conformance to the laws of Germany, which include many European laws. Data protection law is one of them. If an American company is not going to follow those laws, it should not attempt to operate in a country whose laws they are.

        An executive sitting in and Office in Menlo Park or Washington in New York is in international law no more protected from EU law if his company does business in the EU than an executive of a European company is protected from US law if his company operates in the US. Take a look at enforcement on anti-internet-gambling laws in various states, and prosecutions of European businessmen who operated websites providing gambling in Europe. Note that the US didn't care that a website had a .UK or .FR or .DE address, and that Europeans therefor regard Google's claim that it doesn't have to make google.com compliant to EU law, only google.co.uk and google.fr and so on (and only in countries where the courts have instructed it to conform - law doesn't apply to google until the courts tell them, apparently, unlike US law applying to European companies).

        3) If EU (and many other) companies stop using US companies to hold their data that will damage the US economy substantially. It may well improve European economies - maybe our computer hardware industry will come back to life - and maybe other non-US economies too: after all, non-US companies like Fujitsu, LG and so on have very large EU presence and some are quite capable of providing cloud storage is there's a market for it. And nothing prevents European companies using hardware and software provide by US companies - it's not really difficult to use a firewall to prevent the software or hardware phoning home, and (quite amusingly) the data we want to protect is generally in application software which isn't US-provided (and the providers of that software will have strong incentives to make sure its data is not understood by the underlying hardware).

  11. This post has been deleted by its author

  12. Wommit

    Re - LittleOldMe

    Your last few posts sum up precisely what is wrong with the US / Rest-Of-The-World relationship.

    Basically there isn't one. Uncle Sam saying "Bend over and get fucked." isn't a relationship. Its a road to REAL problems.

    Do you HONESTLY believe that MS would allow the EU (and all other similarly affected regions) to drop their lovely cash cow MS Office, without a fight? Or, if necessary setting up local sales & licensing centres around the world. Google would howl if its profits dropped by the lost of the EU. Their bought senators and congress critters would be looking for new employment come next election time. Amazon has already got most of the infrastructure to separate out into national business if necessary, its profits would keep rolling in.

  13. Spanners Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Did anyone ever believe?

    Did anyone ever believe that the Safe Harbor (sic) was ever worth the paper it was printed on?

    We may not have known about the sheer level of data slurping that was going on but there can't have been many people who thought that it was any use whatsoever.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019