zlacker

I personally take issue with this because it can be used by the USA to effectively target data protected under EU's GDPR, because the US has an agreement with Israel to send and share raw, non minimized, sigint without going through legal loopholes to sign proper consents within the US Agencies chain of command as required by the 2023 EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.

I understand the US' companies and the War in Ukraine made a lot of pressure on EU's lawmakers, but the lawmakers basically nullified the scope of GDPR (military side, in a world where being able to control domestic SIGINT is king), and made EU' domestic companies unable to compete against foreign ones with one single decision (economic side).

It was just irresponsible.

>>eaglea+(OP)
What kind of power and leverage does the EU have in cases like these to say 'NO'?

>>Firmwa+Ef
Judging by recent display of ass licking it does not look like the EU has any say in a matter

>>Firmwa+Ef
Force removal from Mobile App Stores, make EU companies avoid implementing their Pixels or Services or face fines, etc.

2022-2023 for example a lot of companies removed their Analytics and Pixels js, because some EU members agencies (Spain and Italy to be precise) started making pilot cases against domestic companies.

It did work though, EU companies could either take an enourmous cost to properly implement these (ie. by local proxy sending only minimized data) or remove them in favor of EU tracking companies. A lot of similar suits followed with cases against Meta.

By 2023 it was clear the EU would make a political deal with the US so companies restored the defaults, without making the necessary anonymization changes.