RE: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose


I basically agree with Walter. I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert
on US versus EU legal systems but I know these data protection issues have
been extensively worked over here by democratic institutions in the member
states, the European Commission and fully debated in (and passed into law
by) the European Parliament. He is not saying our institutions are any
better, just that we have been working on these issues longer, with the
benefit of elected bodies. 

Also many politicians in Europe represent peoples who have a relatively
recent experience of undemocratic government, and maybe have a clearer view
of the threats it poses.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Wainberg []
Sent: 24 October 2012 16:15
To: Walter van Holst;
Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Is this the view of other Europeans participating in this working group?

On 10/24/12 10:39 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
>>> Actually, from a EU perspective this standard as a whole is 
>>> unnecessary because most business practices, at least the one that 
>>> are publicly known, in this field are in violation of EU-law already.
>> So why do we keep talking about it in terms of EU law? Why do we 
>> continue to have proposals aimed at suiting EU requirements?
> Well, I am going to be offensive again and maybe even patronising, but 
> the US legal context for privacy discussions is not quite up to par 
> with the rest of the industrialised world. For all its defects, the 
> European legal framework embodies a coherent framework of concepts on 
> this subject matter. Which sadly the USA does not have. So, apart from 
> my own geographical bias by virtue of being Dutch, other than in terms 
> of consent it is difficult to discuss this in outside the terms of EU law.
> Not to mention that similar frameworks have been adopted by Canada, 
> Australia, South-Africa, Japan, Korea and Brazil as well as that India 
> is in the process of moving in a similar direction.
>   I will be
>> happy if we can once and for all determine that this
>>> Having a
>>> mechanism for consent in the form of DNT is much more significant in 
>>> the US context than in the EU context. The fact that various EU 
>>> parties are sitting at the table in this process is in itself a sign 
>>> that the lack of appetite by the US to import EU concepts (unlike 
>>> most other democracies on the planet) has been noticed in the EU.
>> Are you saying that EU participation in this forum is precisely for 
>> the purpose of trying to impose EU concepts on US companies?
> No, it is an acknowledgement that EU law is not applicable in the USA 
> and that merely leaning back basking in an ill-conceived dream of 
> EU-superiority in this regard is not going to be helpful at all if 
> large parts of the relevant industries are (for now) out of scope of EU
> Therefore it is still useful to participate in a self-regulatory 
> approach, despite it being unnecessary in the EU-context.
>> But to my previous question, if the EU can impose these concepts 
>> extra-territorially through regulation then why try to do it through 
>> this DNT process?
> Well, why get to what you want by asking nicely if you can do it by 
> holding a gun to someone's head? The former is rather more 
> constructive, one would think.
> Regards,
>   Walter

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 21:04:45 UTC