News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The era of borderless data is ending by vineyardmike on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @01:01PM (#31507266)
What if it’s both? What if it is muddled?

China has famously been aggressive at controlling data. We all know this and no one thinks it’s about privacy. But the EU has been pushing to on-shore their citizens data. They have been pushing it for privacy AND pushing it as a national security issue. The EU has strong privacy laws, but they also have aggressive tech laws generally. Cambridge Analytica proved that privacy could be security and the whole drama around FB and the elections made nations weary of leaving the US laws to manage platforms.

Everyone wants more privacy - it’s the sugar to the anti-us tech pill. On-shoring data or requiring local companies own the data (and CX) will help local industries at the expense of Silicon Valley bottom lines. Oh and local companies can be controlled by local government, which makes censorship much easier, a convenient win for power grabbing governments.

TLDR Privacy is one of digital “think of the children” phrases that lets governments power grab.

Re:The era of borderless data is ending by akie on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @02:16PM (#31508403)
I like privacy. And I distrust Facebook and other big tech companies. I'm generally very happy that our democratically elected governments makes an effort to protect the citizens that elected it. I trust the government more than I trust the likes of Facebook, so I really don't see the issue here.
Re:The era of borderless data is ending by oceanplexian on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @03:40PM (#31509502)
I don’t. Governments- even the best ones- have enslaved, killed, stolen from, lied to, and tortured millions of people. If you get on the wrong side of a government they’ll lock you in a metal cage for the rest of your life.

Facebook, on the other hand, has sold some of my advertising data, and if I piss off Facebook I won’t be able to share memes on a website. There is hardly a comparison.

Re:The era of borderless data is ending by daniel-cussen on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @05:37PM (#31510928)
No, just to stop you right there. Allende's government, 1970-1976 (interrupted in 1973, but according to La República de Chile, a country which stopped existing having been effectively invaded, he was meant to continue in office until 1976) didn't meaningfully enslave, kill, or torture anybody. The argument that it stole and lied to people can in fact be constructed, but at that point they have to fight Henry Kissinger's monstruous and cowardly realpolitik with some realpolitik of their own.

You can't just say that, you can't just talk shit about every single government that ever existed, like there was no differences between them. That there was no difference in intent. Like if you were on a desert island with nine other people, would you say that about the organization among the ten of you?

Further, I honestly prefer the contracts the governments of the countries in which I am a citizen to the contracts of practically or literally all businesses and institutions I've encountered.

Re:The era of borderless data is ending by deepsquirrelnet on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @04:16PM (#31509935)
There’s hardly a point to drawing lines between public and private in corporate state capitalism. The boundaries are becoming less important every day. It’s not like we’ve been at war because citizens were demanding it.
Re:The era of borderless data is ending by eqvinox on Thursday May 26, 2022 @05:00AM (#31516180)
> What if it’s both? What if it is muddled?

If governments are muddling it, that makes it even more important for the NYT to un-muddle and call them out on it. And I absolutely agree some countries are using privacy as a dishonest argument.

Apologies for not being clearer here, it's the lack of distinction in the reporting that really riled me. Privacy requirements can — in theory — be met regardless of where the data is actually stored. It just needs to be a place that enables compliance with these requirements. Which just happens to frequently (and sadly) run afoul of "lawful intercept/access" laws.

And I really wish the NYT would have pointed that out.