Alt-right darling Mencius Moldbug wanted to destroy democracy. Now he wants to sell you web services - The Verge
In 2013, Yarvin largely moved away from blogging and sped up work on the second, more professional project. Since 2002, Yarvin had been working on an algorithm — the backbone of Urbit, a product that would restructure how people use the internet. In 2013, he launched the San Francisco-based company Tlon, which oversees Urbit.
5 days ago
4chan: The Skeleton Key to the Rise of Trump – Medium
As someone who has witnessed 4chan grow from a group of adolescent boys who could fit into a single room at my local anime convention to a worldwide coalition of right wing extremists (which is still somehow also a message board about anime), I feel I have some obligation to explain.
This essay is an attempt to untangle the threads of 4chan and the far right.
Internet  cognitive_democracy 
7 days ago
Hungary and the End of Politics | The Nation
 Civil-society groups that backed the allied opposition could have bought billboard space as well—but “civil society” is largely a misnomer in Hungary. Virtually all of the major groups, including churches, are funded by the state, either through the National Civil Fund (now known as the National Cooperation Fund) or direct allocations by Parliament. Few groups have independent or private funding. Since 2010, the Orbán government has presided over a general defunding of left organizations, and none of the groups in the opposition camp have the funds to sufficiently support their favored political parties. Besides, in the absence of any regulation to the contrary, the government-allied billboard companies allocated all of the space to their friends.
8 days ago
Data Commissioner legally required to suspend US data transfers, court told
Austrian lawyer Max Schrems believes the Irish Data Protection Commissioner is required under law, and with no need to first go to the European courts, to suspend transfers of the personal data of EU citizens to the US, the High Court has heard.
That obligation arises without a need for the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to first decide on the validity of European Commission decisions approving the use of data transfer channels known as standard contractual clauses (SCCs), Eoin McCullough SC, for Mr Schrems, argued.
Paul Gallagher SC, for Facebook, said what Mr Schrems was seeking was “extraordinary” with enormous implications not just for Facebook and other large entities but also for many small firms engaged in transatlantic trade.
Ms Justice Caroline Costello heard a brief outline of arguments on behalf of Mr Schrems and Facebook on Thursday in the continuing action by commissioner Helen Dixon to have the Irish court ask the CJEU to determine the validity or otherwise of the SCC decisions.
The action arises from a complaint by Mr Schrems that his EU data privacy rights were breached by transfer of his personal data by Facebook Ireland – because Facebook’s European headquarters are in Ireland – to its parent in the US, Facebook Inc.
No orders sought
The case is against Mr Schrems and Facebook but no orders are sought against them and the commissioner’s objective is to secure a CJEU determination before she finalises her decision on Mr Schrems’ complaint.
The proceedings for a referral were taken after the commissioner made a draft finding in May 2016 Mr Schrems had “well-founded” objections over the data transfers, based on her draft view that US law does not provide an effective remedy, within the meaning of article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, for breach of data privacy rights of EU citizens.

On Thursday, Mr McCullough said Mr Schrems agreed with the commissioner on the absence of an effective judicial remedy under US law and on the premise that such remedies as are available do not meet EU law requirements due to a range of exemptions, wide immunities and barriers
Where Mr Schrems differed from the commissioner is that he considers it is neither necessary nor appropriate, or it is at least premature, to make a reference to the CJEU, counsel said.
Mr Schrems’ complaint over transfer of his personal data is not limited to the SCCs but extends to other data transfer channels, counsel said. The complaint can be decided by the commissioner on the material already available, including the CJEU decision striking down the Safe Harbour arrangement for data transfers, counsel argued.
Mr Schrems considered the material relied upon by the commissioner in seeking this reference should automatically lead to the commissioner suspending data transfers, he said.
The relevant law meant a referral to the CJEU has to be “necessary” for a decision on Mr Schrems’ complaint, there was no such necessity and the commissioner had sought to create a necessity, he argued.
Arguments for Facebook
Beginning his arguments for Facebook, Mr Gallagher said what Mr Schrems wanted was “extraordinary” but his side’s focus was on Facebook’s opposition, for different reasons to Mr Schrems, to a reference to the CJEU.
The commissioner’s draft decision that Mr Schrems has “well-founded” objections to data transfers was “deeply flawed”, based on a “wrong” assessment and had been overtaken by events, including the 2016 EU-US Privacy Shield framework agreement for data transfer, counsel said.
A reference to the CJEU would have “enormous consequences”, casting doubt on the Privacy Shield framework which was not part of this application and due for review in July, he added.
The case continues on Friday.
privacy  Privacy_Shield 
10 days ago
01-02-2017 Update on Litigation involving Facebook and Maximilian Schrems - Data Protection Commissioner - Ireland
Data Protection Commissioner Data Protection Commissioner

Explanatory Memo

Further Explanatory Memo (31st January 2017)
On 28 September 2016 the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) published an explanatory memo (beneath) on the proceedings currently pending before the High Court. The title of those proceedings is “Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited & Maxmillian Schrems”. The Court Record (Reference) Number is 2016/4809P.

In this case, the DPC is asking the High Court to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as to the validity of the “standard contractual clauses” (SCCs) mechanism under which, at present, personal data can be transferred from the EU to the US. Because the SCCs mechanism is established under a decision of the European Commission, only the CJEU can make a ruling to the effect that the mechanism is invalid. Such a ruling cannot be made by the DPC or by any national court.

In the first Schrems case, the CJEU delivered a judgment in which it found that the “Safe Harbour” arrangements for EU/US data transfers were invalid.The DPC is now asking the High Court to make a reference to the CJEU in relation to the validity of the SCCs mechanism. This step has been taken because the DPC has concerns as to the validity of the SCCs when considered in the light of a number of factors, to include Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the CJEU’s judgment in the first Schrems case. The DPC considers that the concerns she holds, and the concerns expressed by Mr Schrems in a complaint filed with the DPC’s office, are well-founded. The High Court will now decide if it agrees with the DPC’s assessment.
The purpose of this note is to provide an update in relation to the progress of the proceedings.
How have the proceedings progressed since September 2016?
1. The parties and 4 amicus curiae (“friends of the Court”) filed a series of pleading documents, affidavits and legal submissions in the period between 9 September 2016 and 20 January 2017. Those documents fix the scope of the proceedings. They also set out the parties’ respective positions on the issues to be decided by the Court.
2. The September explanatory memo referred to an application brought by Mr Schrems in which he asked the court to limit his costs’ exposure in the case. That application was withdrawn by Mr Schrems before it was due to be heard in November.
3. The case is listed for hearing on 7 February 2017. It is scheduled to run for approximately 3 weeks week.
4. In advance of the hearing, the High Court made a number of rulings on 27 January 2017 in relation to the conduct of the hearing. Amongst other things, the Court directed that the following basic running order will apply:
(a) The hearing will commence on 7 February 2017 with opening submissions from the DPC.
(b) Short opening statements will follow from Mr Schrems and Facebook, in that order.
(c) Mr Schrems’ expert witness will be cross-examined on Friday, 10 February 2017.
(d) This will be followed by cross-examination of the DPC’s expert witnesses, and those of Facebook.
(e) Each of the 4 “friends of the court” will then make legal submissions in relation to the matters in issue in the case.
(f) The case will close with submissions to be made by each of the parties, in the following sequence: Mr Schrems will go first; he will be followed by Facebook, and then the Commissioner.

There are also a number of other procedural issues that will also need to be decided by the Court in the course of the trial, at a time the Court considers appropriate. These include issues relating to the evidence which is to be admitted by the Court.

The DPC will publish one or more further updates on these proceedings, including in relation to the resolution of the outstanding procedural issues, as the hearing of the case progresses.

Explanatory Memo (28th September 2016)

On 31 May 2016, the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) commenced proceedings in the Irish High Court. The purpose of the proceedings is to seek a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in relation to the “standard contractual clauses” mechanism under which, at present, personal data can be transferred from the EU to the US.
While the DPC does not seek any specific relief against Mr Schrems or Facebook Ireland Limited (FB), both of those parties were joined to the proceedings because the outcome of the case will impact on the DPC’s consideration of Mr Schrems’ complaint against Facebook (see further below). By joining Mr Schrems and FB to the proceedings, the DPC also ensured that those parties would have an opportunity (but not an obligation) to participate in the proceedings.

The purpose of this note is to explain the background to the case, the reasons why the DPC has taken the case and the current position in the High Court as of September 2016.

What is the background to the proceedings?
1. The case has its roots in a complaint about Facebook which was made to the DPC on 25 June 2013 by Mr Schrems, an Austrian national. Mr Schrems was concerned that, because his personal data was being transferred from FB to its US parent company Facebook Inc, his personal data was then being accessed unlawfully by US state security agencies. Mr Schrems’ concerns arose in light of the disclosures by Edward Snowden regarding a programme called “PRISM” said to be operated by the US National Security Agency (NSA). The data transfers by FB to Facebook Inc were being carried out under the Safe Harbour regime. This regime was established by way of an EU Commission decision in 2000 (the Safe Harbour Decision) which deemed the US to have an adequate level of data protection where the Safe Harbour regime was adhered to by parties involved in personal data transfers from the EU to the US.

2. The DPC declined to investigate Mr Schrems’ complaint as the DPC was bound under existing national and EU law to apply the Safe Harbour Decision. Mr Schrems then applied to the Irish High Court for a judicial review of this decision. On 18 June 2014, Mr Justice Hogan delivered his judgment holding that the essential question for determination was whether the DPC was bound by the Safe Harbour Decision as regards the adequacy of data protection law and practice in the US having regard to Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the “Charter”) which entered into force after the Safe Harbour Decision. Article 8 of the Charter establishes the right of every person to protection of their personal data. Because the Irish Court did not have authority to make any ruling in relation to the Safe Harbour Decision, it referred this issue to the CJEU to determine whether in light of Article 7 (the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications), Article 8 (mentioned above) and Article 47 (the right to an effective remedy where rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated) of the Charter, the DPC was correct in his view that he was bound in absolute terms by the Safe Harbour Decision.

3. In its judgment delivered on 6 October 2015 the CJEU ruled that, notwithstanding a decision of the EU Commission as to the adequacy of data protection provided by a third country (such as the Safe Harbour Decision), a data protection authority was not prevented from examining the complaint of a data subject as regards an alleged inadequate level of data protection provided by that third country. In fact the Court held that it was incumbent upon the national data protection authority to examine a complaint with all due diligence where the individual claimed that an EU Commission decision was incompatible with protection of privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms. However the CJEU made it very clear that although national data protection authorities may consider the validity of an EU act, such as an EU Commission decision, they cannot declare that decision invalid themselves and only the CJEU may. The CJEU went on to rule that the Safe Harbour Decision itself was invalid.

4. The CJEU gave very specific directions (paragraph 65 of the judgment) as to how European data protection authorities should in future deal with a complaint that calls into question a decision of the EU Commission, which the national data protection authority considers to be well founded. The data protection authority must engage in legal proceedings, the CJEU said, before its national courts and, if the national Court shares those doubts as to the validity of the EU Commission decision, the national Court must then make a reference to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on validity.

5. When Mr Schrems’ proceedings were returned before the Irish High Court again on 20 October 2015 the decision of the CJEU was implemented by the making of a High Court Order which set aside the decision by the DPC not to investigate Mr Schrems’ complaint of 25 June 2013. The High Court then remitted Mr Schrems’ original complaint back to the DPC for investigation.

Why has the DPC taken the current proceedings?

6. Immediately following the Irish High Court Order of 20 October 2015, an investigation into Mr Schrems’ complaint was commenced. Later, Mr Schrems reformulated and resubmitted his complaint to take account of the fact that the Safe Harbour Decision had been struck down. The DPC agreed to proceed on the basis of that reformulated complaint.

7. In the course of its investigation, this office established that FB continues to transfer personal data to Facebook Inc, in reliance in large part on the use of standard contractual clauses (SCCs). These are pro forma agreements which have been approved, by way of certain EU Commission decisions, as providing adequate data protection for the purposes of … [more]
Privacy_Shield  privacy 
15 days ago
Net Politics President Trump’s Unlikely Effect on the U.S.-EU Tech Relationship - Net Politics
Obama years as a high point of value-based cooperation are viewing history through rose-colored glasses. The U.S.-EU relationship was rocky, especially with respect to tech policy and ensuring that the rule of law is respected and transposed to online life. Whereas Europeans tend to consider privacy rights as non-negotiable, Americans are often quick to dismiss European concerns as over-regulation not in their economic interest.
privacy  Privacy_Shield 
17 days ago
The Art of a China Deal | ChinaFile
Remember Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening” mantra? For the past decade, China has been increasingly pursuing a policy of “reform and closing.” Reforms are focused on promoting Chinese companies, especially SOEs, while gradually closing sector after sector to foreign companies.

The foreign business community was almost shocked at the extent of China’s opening under the WTO. Then-Premier Zhu Rongji appeared to believe that if Chinese companies couldn’t compete against foreign firms in their own market they would never be globally competitive. China lost confidence under the administration of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. They began turning the clock back with a 2006 directive requiring a couple of dozen core industrial and ICT sectors—including telecommunications, power generation, automobiles, aerospace, equipment manufacturing, chemicals, air freight, architecture, steel, and science and technology—to be completely owned or controlled by SOEs. They also wheeled out the “Indigenous Innovation” campaign aimed at transforming China into a technology powerhouse by 2020. Chinese “national champion” SOEs were directed to obtain technology from their multinational partners through “co-innovation and re-innovation based on the assimilation of imported technologies.”

Industries Listed in Indigenous Innovation, SEIs, and Made in China 2025
Indigenous Innovation
20 days ago
« earlier      
\ _not_ academic_corruption aeon after_the_revolution ai anonymous antitrust arbitration austerity balkanization big big_data bitcoin_madness blyth_article brexit capitalism central_bank china christmas civil_society class co cog cognitive_democracy collective_cognition constructivism contagion_models cosmopolitanism criminals cy cyber cybersecurity cybersecurity_class cybersecurity_norms data_protection democracy_internet dewey dewey_article digital_culture economic_history economic_sociology economics ernest_gellner european european_union evgeny_morozov_has_an_opinion_to_share_with_the_world evolution_institutions fake_news faull financial_system fiscal_policy for_class forces_of_reaction france friends ft_writing game_theory germany global_governance global_green_lanternism hacks historical_institutionalism hypocrisy ideas industrial_districts inequality information_technology institutional_evolution institutional_theory institutions institutions_class intellectual_property intelligence interdependence interesting_stuff international_affairs_class international_political_economy international_regulation internet internet_balkanization internet_class iq irclass isds jack-knight-project john_dewey keynesian latex lawfare leftism let_me_be_the_first_to_welcome_our_new_algorithmic_overlords markets markets_class media minimization mlat mo monkeybait monkeycage monkeyfodder morozov music neo_liberalism networks new_interdependence nudge occupy open_knowledge ows pandoc path_dependence pharma pictures pirate_party pivacy pnr polished_cyberturds political_theory_methodology politics politics_of_the_internet ppd28 prag pragmatism pragmatism_sociology privacay privacy privacy_shield privatization putin recipes regulation rights_without_borders ruling_the_void russia rychliks s science science_fiction scrivener sean_wilentz secrecy security silicon_valley silkroad snowden social_movements social_science ssrc state sunstein surve surveilance surveillance surveilllance swift teaching tftp think_tanks to_be_explained_later to_blog to_read toread torture tpp transatlantic trust umbrella_agreement us us_politics useful useful_idiocy varieties_of_capitalism via:cshalizi weaponized_interdependence wikileaks writing xmas

Copy this bookmark: