It’s an agreement to change the rules, obviously. So I don’t quite see what other form this should or even could take.

And, FWIW, some back-and-forth with the constitutional court is entirely normal and expected. It’s not a crime or otherwise dubious to have a difference of opinion on the most complicated legal issues.

I very strongly disagree with your second paragraph. All the laws I know of in Germany that had trouble with the constitutional court were highly dubious. I think a law overturned by the constitutional court should be the end of a ploticians career or at least be the first strike. It's a complete failure to uphold the very thing they are sworn into an it's a complete failure in their own profession.

I can see that there might be complicated legal issues were my opinion would be wrong, but the stuff I know about (data retention laws and fission fuel tax) were absolutely abhorrent displays of incompetence and disrespect of the constitution.

Agreed. Legislation should be clearly within the consitition, beyond any doubt. Back and forth with the constitutional tribunal pushes the boundaries of the constitution, and risks the tribunal conceding. In addition, the tribunal many times can't enforce violations of the spirit of the constitution, only blatant concrete breaches.

And remember, the constitution was an agreement signed by many groups, and every single clause of it represents the result of negotiations and struggles.

Changing the constitution means overriding that consensus.

> The biggest issue I have here is this: the EU is unable to uphold their own laws. They do things violating their own rules. They are unable to either patch their rules or stop the violation.

I think that's a feature not a bug. The EU believed that privacy is a basic human right, and codified that right into law. But the EU isn't a single minded entity, it's a huge, entirely unique, multi-national government. The natural result is that it behaviour can be contradictory and inconsistent at times. But the codified rights make it possible for the judicial system to step in and correct the errors as they happen.

Eventually the EU will develop a cultural in-grained understanding of privacy and GDPR. Then we'll see the end of these silly violations, and the continual need for the judicial system to step in and correct the legislative system. Until then, at-least the EU isn't afraid to empower its citizens to hold it to account.

They are kind of useful to levy billions of dollars from a handful of US companies. Laws are absurd, over complicated, and unevenly applied, but at least they finance the Brussels bureaucracy.

I wonder if the Catholic Church applies the laws of data protection. If they retain or delete the records of the approximately 80% of baptized population.

Privacy Shield died because the US explicitly believes in citizen rights, not human rights:

> Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Privacy_Shield

It's easy to be cynical and blame the EU for being bureaucratic, but in this case the EU is actually doing its job: protecting its citizens from the abuses of foreign governments who won't grant us equal human rights.

The big question is what's the origin of these laws, given that people add little value themselves, as expressed by their own choices, to privacy and conservative data management?

I wonder if the EU citizens have special needs virtually every other citizen in the world doesn't have?

Or is the EU trying to establish a power position versus american companies?

I wish we asked the citizens, who do you want to trust your data to, Google, or the government?

Q: "Do you wish to exercise your right to be forgotten, in your relation with the government?"

A: "Yes, I don't want the government to know who I am"

What on earth are you talking about?

> I wonder if the EU citizens have special needs virtually every other citizen in the world doesn't have?

The EU believes that privacy is a human right that everyone should have, GDPR is just the law the helps to ensure that right is upheld. It provides a framework for companies and governments to process data in way that ensures that a person right to privacy is respected.

> I wish we asked the citizens, who do you want to trust your data to, Google, or the government?

What has this got to do with anything? GDPR applies equally to governments and companies. State governments and institutions in the EU have been sued on a number of occasions for violating GDPR.

> Q: "Do you wish to exercise your right to be forgotten, in your relation with the government?" > > A: "Yes, I don't want the government to know who I am"

GDPR does not provide a universal right to be forgotten. Legitimate interests governments to store a minimum set of data needed administrate functions like tax collections. But beyond those basic functions you absolutely have the right to be forgotten, and many of the aforementioned law suites revolve around individuals suing the state for retaining personal data inappropriately.

Going to make the assumption you're American. I would point out the US constitutions 4th amendment is meant to restrict your governments collection of data on its citizen in a similar fashion to GDPR. Only difference is that GDPR is modern legislation that deals with the internet, and restricts companies in addition to governments.

It's such a shame that US government seems to be hellbent on ignoring or perverting the 4th amendment as much as possible. For some reason you seem to believe this intrusion is reasonable, and wish to inflict in on every citizen in the world.

>The EU believes that privacy is a human right that everyone should have

Specially from the moment that political position can procure them financial rents, and a good pretext to stop the penetration of american companies in the economy.

And no, I am from a country inside the EU, and I am appalled at how the Brussels bureaucrats keep interfering in my relations with companies.

They don't really interfere. If you want to be data-mined by Google you're free to do so. That's what those cookie forms are for.

They're just giving those of us that don't want to an option to not be tracked (at least in theory)

When asked, 90% of people seaid no to "Do you ant to be tracked" popup that iOS introduced.

So yeah, it's clear that:

1. Most people do not want for companies to collect more data than necessary

2. GDPR in no way, shape, or form interferes with "you relations with companies" if those companies, you kno, actually followed the law. You'd get a simple "yes/no" question, you'd click yes, and everybody else would click "no".

EU governments rampantly spy on their own citizens and domestically held data in ways that would make US agencies blush. This is exposed over and over again but no one cares because everyone is fixated on the US.

Can your refresh my memory, of such illegal spying? Also the GIANT difference is that US can legally spy on non US citizens, so even if I would complain that NSA hacked my company and stole a lot of people private data the Americans will just say "they did their job, all is legal" , there is need for an agreement so we respect each other citizens. if you think X is a terrorist and want to read his emails then does not matter if X is or not a US citizens you follow the laws and present a judge your evidence and ask for permission to spy.