Taking this to the logical extreme:
A French website can not use any American service, right?
Because any American services "are not sufficient to exclude the accessibility of this data for US intelligence services".
A French website can not use any American service, right?
Because any American services "are not sufficient to exclude the accessibility of this data for US intelligence services".
For instance, any service that handles health data absolutely cannot have the data be accessible in a way, shape or form by american-owned entities, for any reason.
It's not hard to imagine that, as time goes on, these same limitations will be expanded to other types of decreasingly sensitive data.
And honestly, that's perfectly reasonable. The US government gives itself the right to systematically spy on everything going through US cloud companies. Precedent has shown it can and will use that data against the interests of its supposed allies, even for industrial espionage.
If the US says "every US company must give over european data to the government", then at some point europeans have to say "US companies can't have european data".
That is irrespective of any legislation or court rulings, it's just common sense.
While the people doing the spying are already doing something ethically very questionable, the person deciding what data is collected on a webservice can still make the decision to contribute to the problem, or be vigilant about data protection.
It's not the DNS calls or phone companies that are more to worry about?
Best thing you can do is not to make use of GA in the first place, so that no such data of visitors of your websites exists in Google infrastructure.
First, it is exaggerated, which is not surprising in today's media and outrage climate. Second, things have changed since Snowden and the congressional oversight had been rolled out. Third, GA is not that valuable compared to other sources.
Your chief complaining would be better spent about how Google uses the data rather than intelligence agencies.
Also note that Google fights against overly broad intelligence / police requests and publishes data on how many they get and comply with.
I think I wrote about the US intelligence thingy, because it was closer to the topic. The question, why the court ruling went this way and what it rests on. If there was no possibility for the US to access the data, then Google could probably simply pinky finger swear, that they are not doing anything evil with the data and EU law might be fine with it.
Does it matter, whether the scenario is "exaggerated"? If it is possible, it needs to be considered by the law. Otherwise it might soon become less exaggerated and more reality than we would wish.
Because I do not live in the West but in one of the great majority of countries with a corrupt, abusive government. The democratic governments of the West are the exception, not the rule.
Well, if I may nitpick, it's a federal republic rather than a democracy...
More to the point though, there was this study at Princeton U about the correlation between US government policy and popular opinion on a variety of subjects which found that public opinion correlates very poorly with government policy / legislation passed, but opinions among the very-rich correlate well. Can't remember the exact reference right now.
> and (mostly) obeys laws.
Oh, definitely not. It can well be argued that there is constant mass violation of the constitution. And regardless of this, the US is such a notorious outlaw on the international level that not only does it refuse to accept jurisdiction of the international criminal court, but has in fact threatened action against court staff if the court hears any case against it:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-internation...
Germany is both a federal republic and a democracy and I would argue the the USA are too. Both countries ultimatively derive their legislation from the general populace and are representative democracies.
I've seen the claim you made several times, but every time I try to look it up I fail to understand it.
What is your reason to think a federal republic would exclude democracy?
A republic essentially means, the state doesn't have a king (head of state by inheritancel, but some sort of president which gets elected in some way (not necessary by the population). A democracy is a category of how decisions get made, i.e. by some vote of the people (demos).
Is there some subtlety I'm missing or is this thing about "federal Republic not democracy" something just always repeated, without properly understanding it. .
Corporations have no defect - They're pure tyrannies."
- Noam Chomsky
And I did live under communism, with absolutely zero corporations. Then I knew tyranny every day. And shortages.
Did Noam Chomsky live under communism by any chance?
But I can always be wrong, so I am open to examples.
However if you do not believe that this is an issue that we have to work against i suggest you get out and develop some principles. You seem to only have issues with these things if done by communist governments.
However, communist governments have done that to millions. If you don't see the difference, I suggest you reexamine your principles.
And I was talking about my government, not yours.
There's a difference between it being a concern for everyone and everyone being concerned by it.
With drone strikes and disappearings?! Wow! Do you have an example?
It was US Military leaks via WikiLeaks that first got Julian Assange onto the USA's hit list, and if and when they get their hands on him, they will make him disappear into a gruesome privatized prison system where he will have no right to be heard, because he published things the government didn't want people to know about.
I don't care if I, personally, will fall victim to this. Trusting the USA is a stupid thing to do, and you have to accept that they are capable of doing a great deal of harm to anyone they want to, regardless of nationality.
Again, do you have an actual example of "good people" being drone striked or disappeared by the US?
The big difference between France and the USA is that the French people usually either passively or actively support them and do not see any problem with what they are doing and would much rather look at the evil Americans. It's not even a political issue, it's almost seen as a divine right.
That's literally one of the main reason macron has been popular: his wannabe bonapartist "great France" mindset (and even those who dislike him don't usually criticize him on that front) that involves crushing the ennemies of France, and a whole lot of illusions of grandeur.
It's also a country where the literal neonazi FN still gets 40% of the votes, but people still laugh about dumb Americans because they voted for trump. Keep in mind, the only reason we don't see more french droning in Africa is because they lack the ability to do so.
And I'm not American or French, but I've had a lot of first hand experience with the damage France is causing in Africa and I'm very familiar with French culture. Yet I'm almost always amazed by the extent of French grandstanding online.
The USA, because, at least in principle, every individual has some manner of influence over his own government.