Dutch DPA fines Uber €290M because of transfers of drivers’ data to the US

https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/current/dutch-dpa-imposes-a-fine-of-290-million-euro-on-uber-because-of-transfers-of-drivers-data-to-the-us

by the-dude • 2 years ago

311 297 2 years ago

autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl

askonomm2• 2 years ago

Love it. Maybe one day U.S companies will learn that while they can steal and sell their own peoples information as they please, and they'll even have their own people brainwashed into such a state of stockholm syndrome that they will defend the corporations ability to do so, that's not the culture EU has, and it won't fly here. Corporations are not the peoples identity here, privacy and safety however are.

xiphias2• 2 years ago

Or maybe all companies will learn to leave EU behind in innovation.

Even though the rules are great, I'm just not sure if it will be good or bad long term for EU.

anonzzzies• 2 years ago

Too much money here to leave it behind. This is a slap on the wrist anyway.

cqqxo4zV46cp2• 2 years ago

China is by basically all accounts running rings around the US, based on current behaviour, whilst being a much more authoritarian regime.

America loves to pretend that no other data points exist so they can attribute whatever good performance they’ve historically seen to whatever supposed cornerstone of American life is advantageous to make whatever point they want to make.

shinycode3• 2 years ago

I don’t think this kind of « threat thinking » is true. « We find ways to steal from you and it’s still good for you because otherwise you will be left behind without us ». It’s kinda feels like bullying to me

croes4• 2 years ago

Without growing user numbers they lose stock value.

And ideas like Uber aren't hard to copy by local companies.

There was even a time where copy cats were an easy way to get rich.

Copy a US company, wait to get bought by that company. That made the Samwer brothers rich.

ghusto2• 2 years ago

Tease.

I would love it if companies from the U.S.A. left the EU. Not solely for the economic boost it would give local competitors (who have all but shut down when U.S.A. companies came), but also because they clash with our culture in negative ways.

askonomm2• 2 years ago

I love the mention of "innovation". What innovation? All the areas of innovation that matter to the EU people, the U.S does not have. 0 federal paid holidays, almost non existent maternity leave, encourages unpaid overtime (something that is illegal in most of EU). Innovation in regards to corporations ability to screw over their own people for monetary gain is not something we're interested in, that's the U.S mindset - money and success before anything else, including personal freedom, employee rights, and so forth.

Etheryte• 2 years ago

It's almost funny whenever this argument comes up. In most EU countries Uber isn't even the biggest ride hailing provider. In this space and every other, there's plenty of competition that would celebrate if any company left the market. There is no figurative void that would be left behind.

jojobas• 2 years ago

Maybe there's innovation somewhere, but putting third world migrants behind the wheel of rental cars isn't it. In any case, there are EU companies to pick up the slack (i.e. Bolt).

vidarh• 2 years ago

All that will happen in that case is that it leaves less competition for companies that provide the same services in the EU.

irdc3• 2 years ago

We don't like the kind of innovation which exploits workers in this way. On this side of the great herring-pond, humans have rights.

hasanhaja4• 2 years ago

Even though the rules are great, I'm just not sure if it will be good or bad long term for EU.

We can speculate this all we want, but I think it's fair to say with confidence that leaving companies unregulated (or poorly regulated) is bad for everyone in the long term. A slightly different example is the poor enforcement of antitrust laws being one of the reasons we have the tech oligopoly we have today with Apple, Google, Amazon and Meta.

doikor• 2 years ago

What is the actual innovation of Uber outside of trying to push the competitors out of the market with investor money? (this isn't anything new/innovative either)

We had app based ride hailing services before Uber and still have them so it can't be that. Surge pricing also has existed before them.

gmerc2• 2 years ago

It's not like building these platforms is hard. They can leave.

debesyla• 2 years ago

But USA companies leaving EU is better for competition - smaller EU-based companies can try to copy the model and do their own thing.

For example, for Uber, lack of it (it took a while to come to some countries) already spawned lots of successful competition.

altacc• 2 years ago

What price is it worth paying for innovation? Innovation just means "new", not necessarily good or beneficial. If the innovation is for companies to be able to do anything and treat anyone however they like in order to make large profits for very few people then we don't want that innovation.

gherkinnn• 2 years ago

Why can't this argument die? What innovation? These practices are those of parasites and leeches and ticks.

cqqxo4zV46cp2• 2 years ago

No, you see US-headquartered multinationals have a God-given right to freedom, including the freedom to smuggle customer data overseas. God bless America.

djaouen2• 2 years ago

If you don’t like it, stop using US-made products. :)

kmlx7• 2 years ago

that's not the culture EU has

clearly:

https://www.flossbachvonstorch-researchinstitute.com/fileadm...

mettamage4• 2 years ago

Instances like this really make me feel that capitalism is devoid of any morality. If there's no law guarding it, a company will abuse its power in order to make more money. It could be a morally good thing, a morally bad thing, it doesn't matter: more money is more money.

It feels heartless. I wish there was a better system.

allendoerfer4• 2 years ago

We have tried systems based on some seemingly absolute moral codex. Some parts of the world are still doing it. Unfortunately it always comes with brutal ways to kill arbitrary groups of people.

Mistletoe• 2 years ago

Capitalism only works with proper regulation to protect the little people. We’ve forgotten that part for quite some time now.

piva002• 2 years ago

Capitalism is absolutely amoral, and has always been.

I'm honestly curious (and adding this as a disclaimer to be clear it's not an attack): why would you think there was any shard of imbued morality when the whole point of the system is based on greed?

nabla9• 2 years ago

capitalism is devoid of any morality.

That's a category error. Economic and political system don't have morals. Not capitalism, socialism, democracy, autocracy.

Economic and political system should be designed to create incentives where externalities are positive and not negative.

npteljes• 2 years ago

Of course it is! What system has a heart? Systems are systems, not something that's capable to develop and cultivate and apply empathy. And even then, it could probably be gamed, like any other system. The need for checks and balances in a system is normal. In fact, I use this to judge how humane a system is. Is there a way to express feedback, to enact changes, to revise decisions, to compensate for damages? If so, then it might be not such a bad system. If not really, then that's most likely not a good system.

sneak• 2 years ago

The surveillance systems in the EU are just as invasive, and frequently moreso, than in the US.

This is largely a false meme, an urban legend. There is no meaningful privacy difference between Europe and the US.

This is simply a money grab; it won’t move the needle on privacy one bit. You’ll still be surveilled everywhere you go in Europe by the state, the mobile operators, and most of the other apps on your phone.

Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if the data stays inside the EU or not. Google collects the same data and the US intelligence agencies can compel them to access the data on EU citizens, stored on EU-located Google servers just the same as if it were in Mountain View.

WA• 2 years ago

Source?

michaelt2• 2 years ago

Of course US companies do more snooping.

The US is where companies from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to Visa, Mastercard and Equifax are headquartered.

EU-based snooping companies just aren't as good at it, and don't have anywhere near the same scale.

upperneath• 2 years ago

I think you’re reaching and acting like Americans don't understand the implication, we just don’t consider it something that’s bad. We are allies on a global market and therefore treat you no differently. This is why the US is concerned about data islands with China, but has no problem with European countries and companies with US data.

Clearly the American capitalist strategy is working since all the products you keep regulating are made in the US. I’d welcome Europe to make some alternatives to what the US is providing before you just unilaterally say we’re immoral and wrong, because currently if all the US companies got fed up enough with the regulation and for some reason pulled out of the market it would cripple the digital life you’re used to in Europe.

Revenue has to come from somewhere otherwise a company can’t grow. “Enough revenue to survive” doesn’t incentivize the kind of rapid business development that consistently comes out of the US versus Europe and is just a naive economic worldview. You have to either sell user data, serve ads, or sell the product wholesale or a subscription. Currently the market (including European users) have decided that they’d rather click skip on an ad and have their usage data sold to drive those ads than pay for the product.

peterpost24• 2 years ago

Seems fair.

shinycode3• 2 years ago

It’s good to know that GDPR is not just annoying banners

ghusto2• 2 years ago

GDPR was never annoying banners, that's just malicious compliance.

mattashii• 2 years ago

In most cases those banners are not even compiant, so "malicious non-compliance" is generally speaking more accurate.

lifestyleguru• 2 years ago

Since GDPR every interaction with public administration, healthcare, and employer within EU results with additional form or two "oh that's just a GDPR form, you have to sign it". I imply they are all malicious as well?

irdc3• 2 years ago

In another article (https://nos.nl/l/2534629, Dutch language) Uber claimed to have been talking to the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens about what they said was an “unclear law”. Via iOS Translate:

A spokesperson for Uber explains to the NOS that they have also contacted the AP themselves about the ambiguity surrounding the privacy rules. Then, according to Uber, the watchdog didn't say that the company violated the rules.

Which is all fine and dandy but the rule really is that if it’s not clear to you (as a rich and well-lawyered company) that something is permitted, that doesn’t give you the right to then do it.

And yes, the fine really has to be this high: fines can never be just a part of doing business; colouring within the lines has to have the attention of everybody involved, from the shareholders on down.

kmlx7• 2 years ago

The appeals process is expected to take some four years and any fines are suspended until all legal recourses have been exhausted, according to the DPA.

i guess we’ll hear more about this in 4 years.

croes4• 2 years ago

I'm confused.

Thanks to the CloudAct there is not protection of EU user data no matter the location of the servers.

koollman2• 2 years ago

That would be incorrect.

IANAL, but cloud act purpose is to allow the usa government to ask data from USA-based or USA-related services providers, for offsense/crimes.

It does not allow service providers to do anything else with that data.

croes4• 2 years ago

But what could Uber do with customer data on US servers what they couldn't do with the data on EU servers?

okasaki• 2 years ago

Meanwhile the UK handed all of its patient medical records to Palantir.

herodoturtle• 2 years ago

Source?

michaelt2• 2 years ago

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/21/patient-priv... very widely reported on - you'll find lots more reporting on Google.

manuelmoreale• 2 years ago

Edit: since someone already posted the guardian link i'll update mine with this one https://theconversation.com/palantir-privacy-fears-over-hand...

wh0knows• 2 years ago

Palantir runs on the customer’s own cloud, or a major cloud provider of the customer’s choosing in the region of their choosing. There’s no data aggregation/sharing across customers, it works similar to AWS.

AlanYx7• 2 years ago

Can anyone explain how this relates to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (also sometimes called the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework)?

I thought that that framework was supposed to allow this (as a replacement for the EU–US Privacy Shield framework)? Presumably this wouldn't have been a problem under Privacy Shield (i.e., pre-2020), or am I getting that wrong?

di4na2• 2 years ago

You are getting this wrong.

Basically the framework, like the Shield before, is the Commission trying to show "look, we fixed it".

Sadly, for the previous two times, the ECJ pointed out after the fact that no framework can fix the lack of data privacy law in the US, and that as such, the Shield, just like its predecessor, was not allowing what it claimed to do.

The Framework has not been tested in the ECJ so far, but the US has not significantly altered its laws so...

AlanYx7• 2 years ago

Thanks. So basically the new framework hasn't accomplished anything that can be relied upon when architecting a system to reduce the risk of GDPR compliance issues?

jorams2• 2 years ago

This article[1] by the Dutch DPA has some details about it: The Privacy Shield was invalidated in 2020, leaving only the Standard Contractual Clauses as a valid transfer tool. Uber stopped using Standard Contractual Clauses in August of 2021, before adopting the new Privacy Framework in 2023. For a period of two years they were transmitting extremely sensitive information without a valid way to do so.

[1] https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/current/dutch-d...

AlanYx7• 2 years ago

Thanks. That gives a lot more information. With respect to the new framework, the article you linked to just says "Since the end of last year, Uber uses the successor to the Privacy Shield." Do you know if the Dutch DPA endorsed the new framework, or did they leave it ambiguous/unresolved as to whether post-2023 transfers are GDPR compliant?

pyaamb• 2 years ago

Good. This should be applied to Chinese EVs too.

wyager4• 2 years ago

We are fortunate to have lived through a brief period where the internet was truly a global network. A person in the Netherlands or Nigeria [1] could access the best technology services the world had to offer. People could more or less interact freely across borders.

Obviously this is coming to an end. Every fiefdom wants their cut and their say, to the point where the internet being a global network is obviously becoming inviable. It was fun while it lasted.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/nigerias-consumer-watchdo...

ndsipa_pomu6• 2 years ago

Well, I'm not sure that I'd equate "freedom" with companies exploiting people's personal identifying information and selling it for their own profit. Personally, I don't want my information that's protected by GDPR in my own country to be smuggled into another country where there's almost no legal protection for someone's data/privacy.

imachine1980_• 2 years ago

Free as in corporate freedom to extract and abuse your personal information

jeltz3• 2 years ago

And this freedom was ended by companies like Google and Facebook who abused this freedom forcing governments to act. Internet was at its worst right before GDPR. I don't think we will ever get back to the old free Internet and instead we will have this power balance between big corps and governments.

TeMPOraL3• 2 years ago

Like with any new frontier. There's age of exploration, then the age of exploitation, and in the latter. Even if the former is usually funded by commercial interests, it's in the latter that they finally suck out everything that's nice and fair and fun about the venture. We're at this stage now with the Internet.

zoobab• 2 years ago

The US still does not have legislation to protect Personal Data like the GDPR.

That did not prevent the corrupt European Commission to issue a third variant of the Shield to still allow american corporation to send data of EU citizens to the US, despite the Schrems2 ruling.

cynicalsecurity• 2 years ago

It was fun for companies to freely steal people's data and sell it to the highest bidder. I'm glad this is slowly coming to an end.

I'm not sure I like Meta's and the influence of other foreign companies on European culture too. We were more free before them.

teekert• 2 years ago

Uber’s right to do what ever the f they want stops at my right to control information pertaining to me.

What’s freedom? GPL? BSD? Swinging a fist? Not getting hit on the nose?

michaelteter2• 2 years ago

Freedom to some means creating a startup that willfully ignores regulations in virtually every market while playing a funding ponzi game until finally handing the consequences off to the foolish public (IPO).

wyager4• 2 years ago

You've missed the point of my comment. It has no normative claims, unlike your angry invective about rights. I'm just pointing out that the inevitable consequence of these new regulatory regimes is a nationally siloed internet. You can feel however you want about it; maybe that's a good thing from your perspective. But it's happening

sjamaan• 2 years ago

These laws have been created for good reasons, and US tech companies have had free reign to trample on people's privacy rights for a very long time.

If a company acts in a honorable way, there's nothing to fear and they can easily do business world wide. It's when companies do things that are shady and should've been outlawed from the start that they run into trouble. The main issue here is that the US has the least restrictive laws and allows its citizens' privacy to be grossly invaded, which means these companies now feel like they're being unnecessarily restricted.

If the US had stricter laws, this would be a non-issue and you wouldn't hear anyone about it. It's all very myopic and US-centered to focus on the company's freedom to do as it pleases. What about the users' freedom to live without being spied upon? Free market rules don't apply - the network effects are too big to really say "you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like it". Also it's a transparency issue - it's too hard to tell from the outside how your data will be handled to make an informed decision about what companies to deal with. Especially because all of them treat your data like they own it, as a cash cow.

pembrook5• 2 years ago

It's all very myopic and US-centered to focus on the company's freedom to do as it pleases.

The Dutch DPA is not accusing Uber of doing anything nefarious. They are mad that Uber, as an American company, can be compelled by the US government to hand over data. Ultimately, their beef is not with US companies, it’s with the US government.

This is all wildly ironic because the EU is constantly trying to spy on their own citizens and undermine encryption. The EU is just upset that the US is able to do it instead of them.

This is just companies being caught in a geopolitical spat between competing powers. The EU keeps moving the goalposts on what constitutes “safe” transfers (we’re on the 5th round of this). So there’s no way for companies to be compliant unless the US government changes its laws. So right now it’s just a lever to extract money from US corporations via never ending fines.

The US government and the EU need to sort this out. Blaming the companies shows a total lack of understanding of the real situation. I get that we all hate big tech now, but there’s literally no way to comply in good faith with these competing EU cash grabs over the shifting specifics of how you can transfer data to US servers.

wyager4• 2 years ago

I'm not going to address your comment at the object level; I'm just going to point out that you've missed the point of my comment entirely. My comment is descriptive (the internet is going to become nationally siloed) not normative (a moral judgement on the conditions that are leading to this state of affairs).

muaytimbo• 2 years ago

"What about the users' freedom to live without being spied upon?" Pretty simple, don't use Uber.

Ragnarork• 2 years ago

Every fiefdom wants their cut and their say, to the point where the internet being a global network is obviously becoming inviable

Why exactly would physical products have to comply with local laws when exported to other countries and not online services? Do you also call it "fiefdom wanting their cut and their say"? Do you disagree with the concept of laws altogether?

wyager4• 2 years ago

The thing that made a global internet possible is that it was understood that sending bits over a wire is different from shipping physical goods. The customs regime for physical goods is prohibitively expensive for bits.

I'm not interested in arguing if eliminating free transit of data is a good idea or not; I'm just pointing out the inevitable consequence of the current trends.

stavros2• 2 years ago

EU citizens: We don't want our data in the US, where it can be siphoned off to other companies.

US company: siphons data

EU: You can't do that.

HN commenter: Damn these fiefdoms wanting their cut, what has the internet become? I pine for a simpler time, when I could do anything I wanted with data against people's will and nobody could stop me, that truly was the golden age.

renlo• 2 years ago

He was saying that Uber will no longer operate in NL/EU, the pining was for "equal access to US services", not your data. FWIW, I am annoyed myself about having to accept GDPR popups on every website I visit, so I too pine for a day where US companies have nothing to do with "EU citizens".

_Algernon_• 2 years ago

We are fortunate to have lived through a brief period where the world was truly a global trade network. A person in England could access the best tea the world had to offer. People could more or less interact freely across borders.
Obviously this is coming to an end. Every fiefdom wants their cut and their say, to the point where the world being a global network is obviously becoming inviable. It was fun while it lasted.

- Some ignorant bloke at the end of the British empire, probably

ben_w• 2 years ago

Point, but IIRC the end of the British Empire was met with a mix of "We didn't want it anyway it was so expensive"* and "We lost an empire but gained a continent".

(The latter followed by lots of pikachu surprise face because they weren't in charge of said continent).

* Not only an Aesop reference, but also an actual claim I've repeatedly encountered

mtkd• 2 years ago

Access to tech is different from handling of personal data though -- the EU GDPR laws around that are clear and fair

People have a right to know where their personal data is going, what is being stored, what it is being used for and should have a mechanism to correct it and delete

The wider challenge is how that is handled in a compliant way with LLMs and generative tools which vendors do not seem to be taking particularly seriously yet

ndsipa_pomu6• 2 years ago

The wider challenge is how that is handled in a compliant way with LLMs and generative tools which vendors do not seem to be taking particularly seriously yet

I'm curious as to why people would want to train LLMs on personal identifying information. What's the benefit of an LLM that has a large collection of names, addresses, dates of birth etc.?

meiraleal• 2 years ago

Local & capable internet is the future. I don't want my country influenced by US/EU politics all the time.

pyrale7• 2 years ago

Every fiefdom wants their cut and their say

You mean, the epicenter of that global network transformed it into a tool of influence and surveilance? [1] Or maybe that the companies participating in that global network saw interest in walling that global network ? [2] [3] Or maybe that global network is being reshaped by a few dominant actors so much that outside regulation becomes necessary? [4] [5]

No, of course not; it must be local barons trying to scrap a bit of power, not at all a reaction to massive abuses from the industry.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM [2]: https://www.eff.org/fr/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-ope... [3]: https://blockthrough.com/blog/the-walled-gardens-of-the-ad-t... [4]: https://www.theverge.com/c/23998379/google-search-seo-algori... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

agentcooper• 2 years ago

The Dutch DPA started the investigation on Uber after more than 170 French drivers complained to the French human rights interest group the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH), which subsequently submitted a complaint to the French DPA.

I wonder on what the initial suspicion from the drivers was based.

shiandow2• 2 years ago

Common sense if I had to guess. Or maybe the app connected to the servers in the US directly.

troupo6• 2 years ago

Could be simple negligence on Uber's part.

Personal anecdote:

Many years ago I was involved with a US organization, and then happily forgot about it. Almost 15 years later they started spamming me with emails coming from their head office in Washington.

I asked them to stop. They didn't. I threatened legal action under GDPR and requested deletion, also under GDPR. They said they complied. A year later they started spamming me again. From the same address.

That's how I knew that they never deleted my info and kept it in the US.

amarcheschi3• 2 years ago

Have you followed with a notification to your privacy authority?

einpoklum• 2 years ago

Could be simple negligence on Uber's part.

The didn't slip, fall, and drop some USB flash drives into the hands of a US data processor...

I doubt it is any sort of negligence, but if it is - it's not "simple".

raverbashing• 2 years ago

Uber is very aggressive with notification span

Even worse when you move between countries and suddenly "Uber Country X" uses your account of "Country Y" to spam notify you about promotions in X. It's weird in a bad way

shiandow2• 2 years ago

I guess this is always going to raise some eyebrows, with this amount of money it's hard to say it's not political.

However I would like to say that the Dutch privacy authority actually seems pretty sincere at enforcing privacy legislation. It's just that until recently they were just sending angry letters, and now they've been given power to do more than empty threats.

creesch2• 2 years ago

with this amount of money it's hard to say it's not political.

If by political you mean "aimed to be effective", then yes it is political. If the fine is too low and these companies make a healthy profit through these practices, they will just take the loss.

landosaari• 2 years ago

Spain fined Booking (Dutch company) 413M€ last month.

For abusing its dominant position, the post has only 2 points [0].

Yet, this one has significantly more comments.

The only political aspect is where the company comes from.

Forum members then want to speak up.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41115644

dtquad• 2 years ago

Does anyone know good best practices and software/DB patterns to model localized GDPR-compliance into global software systems?

I know ASP.NET Core comes with some GDPR-related helpers but it's more interesting to know general best practices and patterns not related to a specific framework.

dacryn• 2 years ago

basically, make sure your data governance is on point. It should almost live outside of your software stack.

Tools like collibra, purview, informatica, ... that know you database, are your best tools at enterprise level.

oneplane2• 2 years ago

It's pretty much part of your normal data management that you'd be doing anyway, except it now has an additional lifetime (on top of any you might have had).

Since when ingesting the data you knew where it came from and on what timestamp, you also know when to next check for deletion. And since you also know where it came from (the owner), deleting/sending it on request (when applicable - not all data is always required to be deleted) is pretty straightforward. In essence it's like garbage collection for managed languages (like C#) but for your data.

At the end of the day, no matter what you use (existing process, create a new process if you weren't managing your data so far, or use some product), treating data like radio active waste will generally lead to good designs. You only keep what you need for the time that you need it, everything else gets removed.

ndsipa_pomu6• 2 years ago

You only keep what you need for the time that you need it

Just to add that it's stricter than that - you can only keep the data that is required for the purpose that you detailed to the customer. e.g. If you ask for their email address for password validation, then you're not allowed to use that email for other communication unless you explicitly asked for that as well.

AdamN• 2 years ago

First off, just presume GDPR applies globally. Then, know your legal 'zones' and by default keep all data in those containers. Thirdly, if you need to send data from one zone to another, ask "Do I really need to?? really???" and only if the answer is 'yes' do you do a proper design and engage legal and security from the beginning of the project through to the end and on an ongoing basis.

losvedir• 2 years ago

Yeah, I have to think things like DynamoDB Global Tables and other tools designed (in a bygone era) of "magic low latency from anywhere in the world" are going to be big footguns going forward.

pyrale7• 2 years ago

Since the end of last year, Uber uses the successor to the Privacy Shield.

Sounds like they're going to get condemned again in the future, seeing how these things get knocked down again and again. The EU commission is really dropping the ball there.

AlanYx7• 2 years ago

The EC has issued an "adequacy decision" regarding the new EU–US Data Privacy Framework (the replacement for Privacy Shield): https://commission.europa.eu/document/fa09cbad-dd7d-4684-ae6... and has begun "certifying" compliance with the Framework: https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/list

So maybe the DPAs will defer to the EC's interpretation of adequacy under the GDPR for this new Framework?

Lots of unknowns though, since Schrems has already announced a challenge to the Framework. The only "safe" option without any uncertainty seems to be architect every system so that data never transits to the US and is also never in the custody of a subsidiary of a US-domiciled corporate parent.

pyrale7• 2 years ago

The EC has issued an "adequacy decision" regarding the new EU–US Data Privacy Framework

To bad the EC isn't the body that can judge whether that deal is legal, and has been caught repeatedly lying about past deals [1].

So maybe the DPAs will defer to the EC's interpretation of adequacy under the GDPR for this new Framework?

As before, cases will go to the actual authority on the matter: the CJUE. I personally don't have high hopes for this deal to last.

[1] https://noyb.eu/en/european-commission-gives-eu-us-data-tran...

pembrook5• 2 years ago

Exactly, compliance is currently impossible since this is a geopolitical spat between the US and EU over US law.

The goalposts on this move every 6 months, so the fines are easy money for the EU.

The companies are just collateral damage. For some reason HN is full of people who don’t actually understand this issue but feel very emotionally passionate that all US tech companies are evil and doing this on purpose.

“Just follow the law, you evil companies!”

Lol. They would if there was a clear law/process to follow that didn’t get shot down every few months.

As it stands, you cannot operate in the EU as a US company if you want to be totally immune from fines.

I urge you to talk to your government representatives (on both sides of the pond) if you care about this issue. This benefits nobody except for EU government coffers.

judge20202• 2 years ago

The only "safe" option without any uncertainty seems to be architect every system so that data never transits to the US and is also never in the custody of a subsidiary of a US-domiciled corporate parent.

If i'm not mistaken, because of this (via[0])

The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.

It sounds like compliance is only possible* if "the US company doesn't have any influence on the EU data-holding company" which is insane. This might be satisfied if the US company simply licenses their software product (e.g. the Uber backend) to an EU company. But this might not be adequate since chances are updates would be somewhat automated, and thus the US-based Uber might be compelled by the government to ship malware with their update to catch some US criminal (or otherwise enact some US spying).

* edit: only possible in lieu of a data agreement like Privacy Shield or its successor as mentioned above

0: top comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33561222

MyFedora• 2 years ago

No, the EC asked ChatGPT to rewrite the Privacy Shield but give it another name, and the CJEU is expected to retroactively invalidate the law again. This will only change if the US provides essentially equivalent privacy protection laws, which they don't.

pylua3• 2 years ago

Funny thing is, us data is almost always maintained by people outside of the US, at least for banking. The servers may live in the us, but the people accessing it are probably located in Europe or India. This also means that the data lives their temporarily while it is being accessed.

The US definitely needs stronger laws here.

ndsipa_pomu6• 2 years ago

It shouldn't be a problem for Europeans to access/process U.S. data that belongs to U.S. citizens - GDPR doesn't cover that AFAIK, so it's fine for it to cross borders. The issue is with GDPR protected data of EU citizens, as the law does not permit that data to cross non-EU borders unless it's for specific exemptions such as law enforcement.

mananaysiempre5• 2 years ago

Or, IIRC, if the destination country has privacy protections that are at least as strict as those in the EU, which the US legal regime for foreign intelligence definitely doesn’t provide (a non-US-citizen wouldn’t even have standing to sue wrt their personal data).

pylua3• 2 years ago

You could be a citizen of the eu and us.

mjw_byrne• 2 years ago

NAL, but I think GDPR has exceptions for remote access, i.e. if a worker in India is viewing data held in the US, that is not necessarily formally considered a transfer from the US to India, even though the data clearly has made it to India if it's being displayed on a screen there.

theptip• 2 years ago

Under GDPR I believe if the data access is from an employee of the company (eg Uber) then there aren’t location checks. (Been a while so I could be mistaken here.)

But if you are subcontracting to an agency you need to list them as Subprocessors in your DPA. So subcontracted support staffing companies for example would be required to be listed and explicitly consented to.

This is all assuming you set up the base contractual protections for the data required to export the data at all, which Iber apparently didn’t do here.

Puts• 2 years ago

Well technically data transfer according to GDPR has nothing to do with where the data is geographically. It’s what legal jurisdiction the controller or processor is under that matters. If you move data to a processor under another jurisdiction that is a transfer.

organsnyder• 2 years ago

GDPR absolutely does have requirements for the physical location of data.

lolinder7• 2 years ago

The US definitely needs stronger laws here.

Can someone clarify for me why the physical location where data is stored is a big deal? Why does the US need stronger laws here?

This is probably just my inner naive technologist speaking, but I really enjoyed the moment of time during which the internet was a global network of computers that created a virtual space where physical borders were largely irrelevant. So it's a bit jarring for me to see people take for granted the idea that borders matter on the internet after all.

Edit: 0x62 has a good explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41357888

I hadn't considered the recursive nature of suppliers.

bayindirh2• 2 years ago

Can someone clarify for me why the physical location where data is stored is a big deal?

What can you do if your data is silently copied by third parties and used for other activities? What if I build a ghost profile of you and steal your identity when I have enough data? What if I relay that you have a fancy car to some people who have the means to get that from you while sleeping? What if I craft a good scam by targeting you with your own data?

It's not about data is sent to where, it's about what happens when it arrives to the physical servers, who has access to these files, and what can they do with it.

When I visited the states, I got EZ-Pass spam/scam e-mails for a year, on an e-mail I gave to nobody when I was there. So, these laws matter.

Nursie2• 2 years ago

Can someone clarify for me why the physical location where data is stored is a big deal?

Because the place where data is collected and stored may have different rules around privacy and data protection then the place it is exfiltrated to.

If I give my data to a company in one place that has strict laws on what may be done with that information, I don’t want it escaping to a low-protection jurisdiction where there are no penalties for selling it to the highest bidder for god knows what purpose.

If there was an acceptable worldwide convention on personal data privacy that would solve the problem. Until there is, it matters a lot.

legacynl• 2 years ago

The reason why the physical location matters, besides latency, is that certain governments have laws in place that allows them access to any data in their territory.

In the case of EU countries (I think its part of gdpr), services that handle personal data need to make sure that that data stays safe. The only way they can do that is to make sure that the data stays in a certain region.

I think that is why op is advocating for stronger laws. Due to lax privacy laws in the US, it's impossible for European companies (and other privacy concerned companies) to host their data in the US, therefore your missing a share of the market

maxglute2• 2 years ago

global network of computers

Global network of computers where data ultimately flowed to American mainframes. Countries realize data is a resource / liability / vunerability, and even if most struggle to profit from it, they'd still want sovereign control over it. You only really control things on your soil. Physical location / possession matters for control.

tiffanyh• 2 years ago

Many countries have data residency laws (their citizen PII data cannot leave that country).

https://incountry.com/blog/data-residency-laws-by-country-ov...

begueradj• 2 years ago

Except that the US authorities have the right to access the data you stored on Apple or Google & Co. servers whenever needed, without your consent and even if you are completely innocent.

childintime• 2 years ago

Funny they are being fined in the Netherlands, because Uber is almost invisible there, as regular taxis have been protected. I don't have accurate data, but it's at least 15€ per inhabitant, so it seems like a very very steep fine. I can't imagine how much this is per driver, €25000?

It seems the dutch regulator is saying "why don't you just go away?". The feeling is likely mutual.

Manfred• 2 years ago

It's a fine meant to be a punishment, not damage settlement.

All DPAs in Europe calculate the amount of fines for businesses in the same manner. Those fines amount to a maximum of 4% of the worldwide annual turnover of a business.

peterpost24• 2 years ago

Uber europe is headquartered in the Netherlands, which is why the fine was handed out there, the complaint was passed from the french privacy watchdog to the Dutch one.

decide1000• 2 years ago

Uber HQ is in the Netherlands. They like the tax system here..

jgowdy2• 2 years ago

That's one way of saying "Europe is full of nations who provide unethical tax shelters for businesses (while criticizing any nation that doesn't provide their level of social programs), so they can regulate and fine and fill their coffers with money from businesses all over the world." But yeah, blame it on the companies that take advantage of the tax shelters EU nations choose to provide and the EU chooses to allow.

kmlx7• 2 years ago

a very steep fine
> The appeals process is expected to take some four years and any fines are suspended until all legal recourses have been exhausted, according to the DPA.

fine is suspended. it will take 4 years of appeals :)

mcmcmc• 2 years ago

Once again demonstrating that fining a corporation for criminal behavior is simply adding to their operating cost, and the lawyers will always get paid

creesch2• 2 years ago

Not sure if you are actually dutch, but it is explained in more detail here: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/225768/uber-krijgt-van-ap-avg-bo...

Although the fine comes from the Dutch regulator, the investigation began in France. In June 2020, 21 Uber drivers there stepped forward to human rights organization Ligue Des Droits De L'homme Et Du Citoyen. Another 151 Uber drivers later joined that complaint. The LDH took that complaint back to the CNIL, France's national privacy regulator. The latter forwarded the complaint to the Dutch Personal Data Authority in January 2021 because Uber's European headquarters is in the Netherlands.

diggan2• 2 years ago

because Uber is almost invisible there, as regular taxis have been protected

Uber is almost invisible there because they continue to blatantly break the law, and even when told to stop, they continue like nothing happened. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/dutch-authorities-raid-uber-off...). This seems to be just another case of the same hubris.

Of course Uber faces pushback when they act like that.

philip1209• 2 years ago

Which big tech company will be the first to stop doing business in Europe? It's going to happen sooner or later.

nehal3m• 2 years ago

My first instinct would say if someone pulls out I hope that would finally spur some competition. You don't need to apply anti-trust to companies that don't operate in your market. Maybe a competing video platform or phone operating system would get a chance at organic growth.

Maybe a pipe dream though. I haven't given it serious thought.

Rinzler895• 2 years ago

The sooner the better. This way local EU players can fill the void they'll leave. This insular isolation also fueled China's domestic SW sector.

kmlx7• 2 years ago

this take is naive.

building alternatives takes time and resources. the EU has neither.

a diverse, competitive tech ecosystem with both EU and non-EU players is better than a protectionist approach.

hoping for an exodus of major global players when you’re leapfrogged by both China and the US…

returningfory23• 2 years ago

I'm not sure if it will actually happen. But the theoretical "problem" with these "X% of worldwide revenue" fines is that they change the calculus of launching an existing product in Europe. It makes it so that if a company enters the EU they risk it being a net negative to revenue.

vanviegen2• 2 years ago

Isn't that exactly the intended effect? Otherwise, why wouldn't BigCorp just ignore any inconvenient laws?

eclecticfrank2• 2 years ago

Not many will shed a tear for Uber. Europe had taxis, private for hire limousines, taxi apps and delivery services long before Uber arrived.

And no, they won't leave. They will comply in order to have access to the European market.

flanked-evergl2• 2 years ago

Europe had taxis, private for hire limousines, taxi apps and delivery services long before Uber arrived.

All the "Uber" rip-offs in Norway are worse than Uber was last time I used it. Not that anyone can afford to use a taxi here anyway unless the government covers the bill, which they do and which is the only thing that keeps taxis employed, I think.

alex_suzuki• 2 years ago

At least here in non-EU Switzerland, Uber often provides superior service over regular taxis. They‘re cheaper and you can’t get ripped off by a driver choosing a more circuitous route.

Sharlin• 2 years ago

I doubt it. Besides Apple, none has even complained very loudly, and even Apple just did it in order to garner some sympathy points from the fans. That is, for marketing reasons. The fact is that none of this legislative stuff, this basic level of consumer protection in the EU is in any way a dealbreaker or a significant hindrance to big tech, merely a cost of doing business.

pyrale7• 2 years ago

[flagged]

ricardo81• 2 years ago

Too big a market. That's the power of the EU I guess. If they can adapt to abide, they will. If they can't, quite likely due to GDPR for many US companies.

gostsamo• 2 years ago

twitter, hopefully. This is an aspect of Musk that I can live without.

akudha• 2 years ago

Why do you think they will leave? They will make noise, complain but if the choice is between following rules or give up profits, they will fall in line. Money trumps everything else.

They will however keep lobbying, support candidates favorable to them etc.

EU (and other governments) should be vigilant all the time. The moment they take it easy a bit, big tech will be back to their usual shenanigans

bitmasher9• 2 years ago

The EU fines based on global revenue. If the EU is a small part of a companies’ profit then they may decide to stay away for liability reasons.

phatfish• 2 years ago

Hopefully it is one of the social media parasites. But the "gig economy" is a close second.

kklisura• 2 years ago

Why can't big tech companies just adhere to the rule of the law?

qqcqq• 2 years ago

This puts the total fines from the EU on American tech businesses at $14.8B in the last few years: https://loeber.substack.com/p/20-no-more-eu-fines-for-big-te...

I think this substack is good, it makes a pretty clear case that US tech companies may not leave Europe any time soon, but they wield the power in the relationship much more so than the Europeans. Those regulators are overplaying their hands.

berikv• 2 years ago

The counterpoint to that article is: US Big Tech could also abide to EU laws and avoid fines altogether.

pembrook5• 2 years ago

US companies literally cannot abide by EU laws, because they are subject to US laws, which conflict with EU laws. This is what all these European judgements are disagreeing with.

The companies are not at fault here. The governments are at fault for dropping the ball on coming to an agreement. We’re on like the 5th round of this. Compliance is impossible.

Until the two governments fix this, US companies cannot operate in the EU without being at risk for pilfering from EU government.

mananaysiempre5• 2 years ago

While the CLOUD Act exists, and in general while the US refuses to recognize privacy rights of foreigners and grant them sane due-process protections, it seems logically impossible to comply with US and EU legislation at the same time (the European Commission’s repeated but non-binding pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding). That US companies aren’t exactly in a hurry to try looks to mostly be a distraction.

schleck82• 2 years ago

What happens then? They leave a vacuum and then what? Noone fills that vacuum? Assuming there is zero competence in the EU, which is highly unlikely since both the best image generation model right now and very respectable open source llms are from the EU, and on top of this several countries in Europe have exceptional tech talent (especially in the East), the Chinese would jump in immidiately.

dumbo-octopus2• 2 years ago

If your concern is privacy, moving to Chinese services is not the answer.

scotty79• 2 years ago

I think it rather shows that they make a fortune off of European customers if they can afford those fines so it's still terrible deal for Europe.

eclecticfrank2• 2 years ago

Two of your last three comments refer to loeber.substack.com

nerdponx2• 2 years ago

I admit I didn't cross check every detail here, but this article reads a lot like American "pro business" literature that cries about regulation stifling innovation, hurting American international competitiveness, etc.

The conclusion that the EU must stop fining American tech businesses does not follow from the evidence presented. I am willing to take them at their word that EU regulators are overly fixated on Meta and Google specifically... except here we are in a thread about Uber.

The principle that fines for bad behavior should be doled out to citizens is noble, but laughable. Is there any precedent for that anywhere in any developed nation state in the last 50 years? I'm not talking about damages in civil suit, I'm talking about proceeds from fines being directly redistributed to citizens.

Overall, I am very happy that, as an American, the EU is stepping up to govern and regulate American businesses, while the US federal government itself continues to extend its decade-long vacation from governing.

cube2222• 2 years ago

How exactly are they overplaying their hand?

If, and that is a big if, American big tech decided to pull back from Europe, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up being a good thing for the local market in anything but the short term.

It’s very hard to compete with them (even in the local US market). Their disappearance from a market as big as the EU would likely spark competition.

nerdponx2• 2 years ago

They aren't overplaying their hand, or at least they aren't according to anything presented in that article. The author frets about some balance of power, but does not make a convincing case that the EU position is threatened in any way.

Less we also forget that US public sentiment is shifting. If anything, big tech needs to be careful.

benreesman• 2 years ago

Let’s get that number up! I want to see some CEOs opting for the E-Class vs the S-Class because they intentionally, willfully, knowingly treated citizens like plebeians.

You guys can get with the program now, or you can wait for one of those tent camps to abruptly rise up and drag you out of your Plaid Tesla and beat you to death with your own iPhone.

snowpid4• 2 years ago

[flagged]

johnloeber2• 2 years ago

Where does it say that I lived in the US my whole life? You're getting ahead of yourself.

From another blog post:

I grew up in Europe (mostly Germany, Denmark, Switzerland). I had never even set foot outside the continent until I was 18, when I moved to the United States. I have lived here for 12 years now, with most of that in San Francisco.

blackeyeblitzar2• 2 years ago

Although I support European privacy laws, I also detest their push for censorship of social media, the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, and this feeling that they’re milking US companies for tax revenue. I do think this can end up being overplaying their hand - why should US taxpayers fund NATO and the EU’s defense disproportionately, for example, if the EU is also going to steal from US companies and not holding up classically liberal values like free speech? Is it really in American interest to tolerate this status quo?

baxtr• 2 years ago

They will filed it under “cost of doing business in Europe” and add it as markup on their prices.

flanked-evergl2• 2 years ago

At this point, I would pay to have my data stored somewhere outside the jurisdiction of the EU.

peterpost24• 2 years ago

why?

Dutch DPA fines Uber €290M because of transfers of drivers’ data to the US

Related Stories