69

Almost regularly there is news on this or that US (internet) company that must adapt its practices for European customers, since they tend to be too lax with regards to privacy protection according to EU regulations; while from the US perspective there is no problem.

Why is this generally the case? Why do US citizens and companies tend to be less concerned about privacy with regards to their European counterparts? Is it due to some historical event? Or it simply "is" and there is no major drive to change the status quo?

Community
  • 1
Federico
  • 6,726
  • 4
  • 36
  • 58
  • 1
    In Europe, companies have to report exhaustively all the data you store. The problem (for example from Facebook) they do not report all the data they collect, specifically. – Peppo Sep 13 '17 at 12:14
  • 1
    That title has got to go. Your question is : why are the privacy policies of European ISPs stricter than the ones in the US. – Mazura Sep 13 '17 at 19:36
  • 7
    @Mazura no, ISPs are not the subject of the question. – Federico Sep 13 '17 at 20:06
  • 22
    @Federico Interesting article. An alternative way to interpret what you see: a huge segment (I daresay majority) of Americans look at regulation, in general, in a negative light. Regulation translates to restriction and while most of us are not entrepreneurs, there is this visceral idea of the self-started American (the so called "American dream") and corporate regulation is often portrayed by industry and politicians as limiting that ideal. In many ways I see a lack of privacy laws being connected with that distrust of restriction. So it's as if we share values but have evolved differently. –  Sep 13 '17 at 20:09
  • @DanK that sounds like a decent answer. Why don't you write one by expanding a bit you comment? but please note that I explicitely single out citizens and companies – Federico Sep 13 '17 at 20:12
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Sep 20 '17 at 03:30

6 Answers6

80

Several EU states endured surveillance by secret police in the past (for instance in Nazi Germany or Eastern Germany), making privacy a sensitive enough topic that constituents demanded strict protection from future large-scale surveillance attempts. In complying with these requests, law makers also ensured that it wouldn't be possible for a State to work around these rules by resorting to the private sector. It was then a natural step to enshrine privacy protection at the EU level.

Another factor that feeds into the attitude is that Europeans have an example across the Atlantic of how things can go wrong when there's very little privacy protection. Put bluntly, it's not appealing.

The US, by contrast, never experienced an oppressive secret police - however close the FBI might have come to that description under Hoover. There are some provisions and laws at both the State and Federal levels aimed at guaranteeing privacy, and some legal chatter about it every now and then, but nothing firmly set in stone (except for medical data, and prohibition from spying on US citizens that has been progressively diluted - or indeed, ignored - since 9/11).

Edward Snowden exposed US government operated large scale surveillance activities, which has heightened public awareness about the issue. But these have never reached the point where there are widespread fears about the police showing up at your doorstep, arresting you, and abusively keeping you locked up or worse for arbitrary reasons. Nor has that point been reached by neighboring states or while under occupation by an enemy force. So things progress slowly.

Denis de Bernardy
  • 30,642
  • 7
  • 91
  • 118
  • 26
    Also relevant that the UdSSR ended not that long ago. For some current EU officials the downsides of excessive surveillance are not simply cultural knowledge, but actual personal experience. – Peter Sep 13 '17 at 15:23
  • 6
    "Nothing set firmly in stone" regarding privacy protection from the government is utter nonsense in regards to the U.S. The government (and anyone operating at its disposal) have been legally banned from spying on citizens without probable cause of having committed a crime since the government has existed as part of the Constitution itself. The programs that Snowden revealed sparked such outrage precisely because they are illegal and violate principles that have been central to the American system of government as long as it has existed. – reirab Sep 13 '17 at 16:00
  • 11
    @reirab: Right, and fixed. But I honestly disagree. From my European viewpoint the protection is minimalistic (in that it's not wholesale privacy protection), and I didn't get the impression there was that much outrage in the US outside of a few well informed circles such as the law and IT crowds. – Denis de Bernardy Sep 13 '17 at 17:28
  • 16
    I'm sorry but this answer shows no familiarity with American history or culture. You have completely disregarded America's cultural distrust of government (dating back to its Revolution), its structured dichotomy of state vs. federal law (the gov't doesn't trust itself), its love affair with free speech and the gun (directly tied to gov't distrust), and the historical abuses against large minority populations (which stir distrust to this day in the form of huge political movements). You are working off of a flawed premise that Americans somehow value their privacy less. –  Sep 13 '17 at 19:26
  • 29
    @DanK They may value their privacy very highly in theory, but the OP's question shows that in practice their privacy appears to be less protected than in EU. – Gnudiff Sep 13 '17 at 20:04
  • 27
    @DanK I don't see many protests about the Equifax breach, despite being it a disastrous breach of the privacy and economic safety of a good chunck of the US population. And I don't expect that company to be punished in any way for their complete lack of safeguards aimed at protecting that data. You might distrust your government, we distrust also private companies. – Federico Sep 13 '17 at 20:10
  • @Federico Oh, they'll definitely be punished. Class action lawsuits were filed immediately. I'd not be surprised to also see a direct Congressional investigation. – reirab Sep 13 '17 at 20:17
  • 10
    @Federico And there, I think you just hit the nail on the head. For better or worse, I think the US population has always had such a historical distrust of big government that we've never allowed them to build the regulations that may protect us as consumers. –  Sep 13 '17 at 20:17
  • 6
    @reirab I think we should move to chat for this (but timezone difference dictates that I am loggin off now). My perception is that these lawsuit might give some money to the victims, but they don't significantly impact the company to the point that their MO will be changed. – Federico Sep 13 '17 at 20:20
  • 4
    @DanK: Your objections seem to feed directly into my answer. There is episodical outrage, and yes, there is distrust of .gov. But because there never has any police state in the US or in nearby countries, it's treated as a theoretical thing more than an actual thing (as it was in Europe), with lawsuits filling the gaps here and there, one small step at the time, rather than constituents demanding privacy regulation upfront. Should the US ever reach the point where it's licking its wounds over the topic or has a neighbor doing so, methinks it'll be quick to enforce it. Until then... – Denis de Bernardy Sep 13 '17 at 21:12
  • 15
    I think what this answer really misses is that even though privacy is highly valued in the US (the fourth amendment to the constitution is about privacy), the privacy in question is privacy from the government, not from businesses. Also the "free market" is highly valued in America, so many are unhappy with the idea of regulating how businesses gather and keep "private" information. Basicslly, we want to be able to sell our data to any company or enterprise, and we also want our private data to never be given to the federal government. – Todd Wilcox Sep 14 '17 at 04:48
  • Alleged harm from cannabis and obscenity as opposed to alcohol, tobacco, aspirin, and weapons, is quite arbitrary and used to abuse people. – Cees Timmerman Sep 14 '17 at 07:28
  • 4
    Perhaps there's media bias at play, but I've always perceived the opposite of this question's premise. Only in Europe do leaders openly call for things like an end to online anonymity. – Kevin Krumwiede Sep 14 '17 at 08:27
  • 4
    Many seem to consider the EU as a one big entity. We'll it really isn't. EU is a union of 28 different sovereign countries. It is not comparable to US states in any way. There are some regulations and recommendations that the EU imposes on its member countries, but every country has their own regulations. And one of the primary ones is privacy. Beyond border checks, each EU country has their own rules and laws on what is allowed for government officials like police, border guards, social workers, doctors, etc. to do. They can be completely different from country to country. – Juha Untinen Sep 14 '17 at 10:16
  • 6
    @DanK Equally, you might be underestimating the cultural difference between the US and Europe. For example as a Brit, I find the US position over "constitution-worship" incomprehensible, unless it is simply childishness (after all, the US hasn't existed for long enough to take a mature view of history yet!) The UK doesn't even have a written constitution, and apart from a few oddballs nobody has the slightest interest in creating one. But we do have an official State Religion (headed by the monarch) - which means that most people don't take any shape or form of "religion" seriously! – alephzero Sep 14 '17 at 16:32
  • 3
    ... the formal constitution separation of church and state has rather the same effect as a large "no fishing" notice by a lake - the notice tells everyone with half a brain that there are fish here that are worth catching. Hence the size and importance of the various religious political lobbies in the US, IMO. In UK politics there are no religious lobbies of any practical significance - not even the Established Church. – alephzero Sep 14 '17 at 16:43
66

It's not really a matter of privacy itself being taken more seriously in Europe. It's more a matter of a differing view in the proper role of government. In the U.S., at least traditionally, the proper role of the government has been seen to be more limited than in Europe. While this is perhaps somewhat less true today than 200 years ago, it has still been true to a large degree for the entire existence of the U.S. This includes less government limitations on what contracts private parties (whether individuals, private organizations, or businesses) are allowed to enter into with each other.

Since government limitations on what data Internet companies can store on users (with the permission of the user) is inherently a limitation on what contracts private entities may enter into with each other, the U.S. has been more reluctant than Europe to create such limitations, just as it is with other limitations on private contracts (or private actions in general.)

When it comes to privacy protection from the government, the situation is different. For example, even in a criminal case where all of the standards for a search warrant are met, you cannot be legally compelled to supply a password or encryption key in the U.S., while in Europe you can be so compelled. In the U.S., this is considered a violation of the 5th Amendment, which, among other things, says that you can't be forced to be a witness against yourself. (Edit: As Dan pointed out in the comments, apparently a circuit split now exists with regard to this in the U.S., so the issue will likely end up being addressed by the Supreme Court.)

In addition to the protections granted in the 5th Amendment, the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In general, this bans the government from searching or seizing without your consent any of your property or communications (or yourself) without a warrant showing that you've probably committed or are about to commit a specific crime and specifically describing what can be searched or seized (and this is interpreted by courts to only extend to things which could reasonably by construed to be likely to provide evidence of that specific crime.)

reirab
  • 8,261
  • 26
  • 47
  • 35
    UK is not exactly illustrative of how continental Europeans view privacy protection though. On many grounds they're worse than their US cousins when it comes to attitudes towards it (their large scale video surveillance and massive data banks would be unthinkable in most if not all countries on the other side of the Channel), and they'd likely enjoy less protection were it not for EU laws. If anything I'd wage that privacy conscious citizens will deeply regret the EU-related protections post-Brexit. – Denis de Bernardy Sep 13 '17 at 17:52
  • @DenisdeBernardy I guess you wanted to say "miss" rather than "regret" in that last sentence :P – Federico Sep 13 '17 at 18:18
  • 1
    @DenisdeBernardy Yeah, I was comparing mostly to EU-wide regulations, since that's what the question asked about. Of course, different countries within the EU may have more strict regulations and those vary from one country to another (and the same is true for U.S. states.) – reirab Sep 13 '17 at 19:11
  • 2
    The situation in the US WRT unlocking password protected devices is still in flux because of conflicting decisions at the state and lesser court levels. While some have ruled that the demand's an infrigment of the right against self-testimony others disagree. Until Congress passes a law at the federal level, or a case works its way to the supreme court this isn't likely to change. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/man-in-jail-2-years-for-refusing-to-decrypt-drives-will-he-ever-get-out/ – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Sep 13 '17 at 19:18
  • @DanNeely Interesting. I didn't realize that there was a circuit split there. At any rate, it appears that that particular case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. With a circuit split already in place, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will take the case (or a similar one, if there's another.) Back in 2012, the 11th Circuit ruled that it was a violation. – reirab Sep 13 '17 at 19:59
  • 9
    @reirab there is an EU person data protection directive, which is mandatory starting next May for all member states and which equalises the fines for breaking the privacy law to be 4% of the turnover of the whole group of the companies by the way. Down here everyone is on their toes to change the software and operating procedures in next 6 months. – Gnudiff Sep 13 '17 at 20:12
  • @DanNeely I edited the answer to mention the circuit split. I don't think there's anything Congress could do to make this legal in the area covered by the 11th Circuit, since it was ruled to be a violation of the 5th Amendment. The only ways to overturn that would be to amend the Constitution itself (very, very unlikely) or for the Supreme Court to overturn it. – reirab Sep 13 '17 at 20:13
  • @reirab wouldn't that depend which way they tried to resolve it. Congress saying "you can demand passwords" would still conflict with the 11th Circuit ruling the demand unconstitutional. But if Congress were to pass a law making the demand illegal wouldn't that end the dispute. (At least temporarily, if the law was subsequently repealed the question of constitutionality would again become a problem.) – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Sep 13 '17 at 20:19
  • 3
    @DanNeely Yes, Congress could make it explicitly illegal, but they can't make it legal. – reirab Sep 13 '17 at 20:20
  • 1
    For what it's worth I think the 5th amendment protection of passwords is a historical accident that will be corrected later. Many people don't know this, but that was not the point of the 5th amendment. Its goal was to prevent a situation where you're tortured into giving a false testimony as evidence against yourself. Otherwise, it's pretty well-established that the governments need to be able to access material evidence against you or your loved ones, regardless of whether you like it or not. – user541686 Sep 15 '17 at 00:31
  • 1
    @Mehrdad A lot of it will come down to how the Supreme Court rules. They could overturn it, but I think the current Supreme Court is unlikely to do so (maybe they will prove me wrong.) If the Supreme Court does not overturn it, I think it has little to no chance of being changed. Constitutional Amendments that remove rights just don't happen in the U.S. There has been exactly one in the entire history of the U.S. and it's the only Amendment to have been repealed. – reirab Sep 15 '17 at 03:32
  • @reirab: Yes, that's exactly what I meant -- that a Supreme Court ruling in the future will likely overturn it, since it misses the point of the 5th amendment. I wasn't referring to passing new amendments at all. – user541686 Sep 15 '17 at 03:46
  • 5
    I think it's a mistake to view it as contrary-to/missing the point of the 5th amendment. Both in terms of the way users feel about it, and the actual mathematical reality, encrypted data storage is akin to an extension of one's personal (in-brain) memory, not a "locked box of papers". – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Sep 15 '17 at 18:33
  • @Mehrdad even in the case of encryption, they could compel you to give up a key that encrypts false testimony (depending on your encryption system). In any case, the 5th amendment doesn't prevent the government from accessing your computer, just you testifying what the key is. – Christopher King Sep 18 '17 at 18:31
29

This is largely a cultural difference in the value of privacy with respect to independent companies. The U.S. constitution offers no provisions directly for privacy; it is implied by the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments that citizens have some level of privacy from the government. The EU government takes privacy more seriously, and has passed laws that force compliance and don't allow contracts to waive certain rights unlike in the U.S. The U.S. also was founded on a fundamental distrust of government that still exists in some degree today, and that mistrust prevents laws allowing the government to enforce privacy to the same degree.

There is also the matter that the U.S. laws are to some degree outdated with respect to the modern web framework and they aren't equipped to handle scenarios where companies can gather and process the amount of information that they can today. The EU has updated/passed a lot of regulation in the past few years giving them a better framework to handle modern needs with respect to the Internet. Between general incompetence of U.S. politicians and corporate lobbying, it's unlikely they will have any sort of overhaul anytime soon. Additionally, companies have been careful in the U.S. to not allow legal precedent to be set in a number of cases by settling them before rulings can be made.

Community
  • 1
Ryathal
  • 13,905
  • 35
  • 58
  • 2
    I'm sorry if the way I phrased the question is unclear. I'm afraid that this is not really answering my question. I know/understand that there is a difference in the laws/constitution, my question is "where does this difference come from?" If the answer is the "cultural" one you refer in your first sentence, I'd like to ask you to expand on it. – Federico Sep 13 '17 at 12:28
  • 1
    I agree with "The U.S. also was founded on a fundamental distrust of government that still exists in some degree today" but I don't see how it follows that "that mistrust prevents laws allowing the government to enforce privacy...." I'd think people who don't trust the government would demand laws to protect their privacy. – Adrian McCarthy Sep 13 '17 at 18:37
  • 9
    @AdrianMcCarthy Laws to protect their privacy from the government, yes (and such a law has existed as long as the U.S. has existed - the 4th Amendment.) Laws limiting what contracts private parties can make with each other, however, are another matter. – reirab Sep 13 '17 at 18:42
  • 4
    @reirab: Except that the U.S. has a third-party doctrine, so that almost any data a private party collects about you is essentially available to the government. So if people the mistrust the government enough to pass privacy restrictions to keep their data from the government, then they'd also need similar restrictions on third party collectors as well. – Adrian McCarthy Sep 14 '17 at 19:45
  • @AdrianMcCarthy The government can still only get it from them if either the third party willing gives it to them or the government has a warrant (in which case they could legally collect it themselves anyway.) – reirab Sep 14 '17 at 22:00
  • 2
    @reirab: Or an NSL, or an administrative subpoena. But in practice that doesn't matter because the third-parties are likely to willingly give it. Often the third-party doesn't have any privacy interest in the data they keep about others. Additionally, the government can often offer incentives (both carrots and sticks) to get them cooperate. By not limiting surveillance by private parties, we enable the government to easily access private data. If people don't trust the government, then they should wrest control of their data away from the third-parties as well. – Adrian McCarthy Sep 14 '17 at 22:17
  • 1
    @AdrianMcCarthy But instead of demanding laws from the government that protect the citizen's privacy (e.g., a restrictive regulation that would disallow simple login credentials such as "admin/admin" to be valid at firms like Equifax), the demand is rather that the government not interfere with companies either and hence no such regulation is enforceable. Then again the fears are certainly justified that governments (not only in the US) would prefer to install any regulations rather to enforce backdoors to allow the government (and thereby potentially anybody else) access to private data. – Hagen von Eitzen Sep 16 '17 at 21:36
  • 1
    @HagenvonEitzen: Sorry, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. If there's distrust of government and the corporations routinely enable the government to have access to private citizens' data, then I don't see why that mistrust of government should prevent citizens from demanding privacy laws that restrict collection by both third parties and by government. The demand should be just the opposite, in fact. – Adrian McCarthy Sep 17 '17 at 16:12
8

There's one thing I didn't see in the other answers, that I think is extremely relevant too. These are US companies entering a European domain; this is a foreign entity to them, and foreign entities, even in the US, have a lot more privacy concerns and regulations than domestic entities.

That's not saying there isn't some difference in our laws, but I think that can explain a general difference in opinion for a company like...Google. Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc., are American companies, so Americans, for better or worst tend to trust them more than Europeans do.

I think in general, as an American and knowing other Americans, if you see a Chinese, Russian, European, or Indian based company, we tend to trust it less ourselves.

Brian Deragon
  • 181
  • 2
  • 7
    And a company in the EU has strict rules, which apply to the data of all its customers. In the US the rules apply mostly to US customers. The NSA say more or less open, that they "only spy on foreign people". Yep, and that's why EU citizen like their data to lie on EU servers. That's why the safe harbor agreement fell. The US government could not promise that there will be no access by agencies. – allo Sep 15 '17 at 13:32
3

In general, Europe tends to have more regulations than the United States in regards to almost everything. This is just one more example of that. There is also a certain conflict in the US between the public right to information and the individual right to privacy. In Europe the latter seems to have firmly won out. In the US the battle goes on.

kingfrito_5005
  • 199
  • 2
  • 6
    "Europe tends to have more regulations than the United States". Do you have any sources for that? – Steve Smith Sep 14 '17 at 08:18
  • 11
    I am wondering the same as Steve. And about how to weigh such regulations. Is it a regulation that borders within the EU have to be open? I guess so; but it ensures I can pass borders unregulated. As a counter-example, when I travelled to the US for the first time, it totally felt like Fortress America. Nobody has my fingerprints, except the US. No other country ever asked me if I have arab friends. Except the US. Am I addicted to some pharmaceutical for health reasons? Netherlands didn't care. France didn't care. Portugal didn't care. The US did. – phoobar Sep 14 '17 at 08:24
  • 2
    @SebastianMach Comparing borders within the E.U. to U.S. external borders isn't really a fair comparison, though. Freedom of movement within the U.S. is almost completely unlimited and you will certainly never be asked such questions (or normally any questions) when you're traveling within the U.S. The borders within the U.S. consist of a sign (and possibly a change in the quality of the pavement.) – reirab Sep 15 '17 at 19:39
  • @reirab: You're right. I'll add Suisse to the list of countries that did not ask these questions, which is not member of the EU. And, long gone are those days though, Austria before 1995. Friends told me also that New Zealand and Australia are nothing compared to the US, and from looking at information online, I could be there within days, without having to swear that I am not planning an act of terror. [...] – phoobar Sep 16 '17 at 12:15
  • 1
    [...] However, I apologize for leading this off topic. My (and Steve's) comments were really asking for sources for the claim that the EU is more regulatory than the US, and in which regards this is better or worse for personal liberty. – phoobar Sep 16 '17 at 12:17
  • 1
    @SebastianMach many in Europe rightfully believe that we should have Fortress Europe too. – JonathanReez Apr 19 '18 at 18:30
  • 1
    @JonathanReez: And many think the opposite, equally rightfully so. – phoobar Apr 20 '18 at 09:59
2

...this or that US (internet) company... must adapt... since they tend to be too lax with regards to privacy protection according to EU regulations; while from the US perspective there is no problem. Why is this generally the case? Why do US citizens and companies tend to be less concerned about privacy with regards to their European counterparts? Is it due to some historical event? Or it simply "is" and there is no major drive to change the status quo?

I think the other answers are very good and hit the main points. Like M de Bernardy said, US citizens & UK subjects have been relatively more comfortable with mass surveillance over the past few decades because they haven't endured fully fascist or communist systems within living memory. (The Old South was far closer than most Americans understand but its surveillance networks—including many black informants—muddies narratives and isn't part of most people's takeaway.) Mr Deragon is also completely correct that your main focus is on American tech companies. American politicians in both parties are fine with Apple or Microsoft paying less corporate tax so long as they have elaborate lobbying and campaign contribution networks. (Essentially the end of MS's monopoly trouble in the '90s was Orrin Hatch [R-PA] just saying, no, you guys have too much money now and you're going to have to pay into this game or we will crush you. End of.) Until the Chinese prove able to buy them off, the US has no problem outsourcing most of their intelligence work and, as Snowden showed, appreciates its private companies having troves of domestic surveillance that it can either openly or surreptitiously get its hands on, circumventing statutory restrictions on its own work. Like Sen Hatch, European regulators are not necessarily acting out of their constituents' best interests in drafting strong restrictions on market sectors dominated by other countries' companies. Partially they're annoyed with general American snooping on the ruling class and partially they're using what leverage they have in frustration at their inability to tax these guys even after the worst Irish loopholes got closed. The EU doesn't necessarily expect compliance; they expect to be able to pull in hundreds of millions in fines when the American companies inevitably fail to fully comply. They also get leverage in important negotiations with the Yanks and keep data centers in Europe despite the expense of the labor market and getting them carbon neutral.

One thing that no one has talked about yet but should be mentioned is that discussion of privacy in US law inevitably brings in abortion. American law is religiously revertial of the Constitution but the landmark case for its treatment of privacy has become Roe v Wade, which became a massive political football. It defended its invalidation of state-level restrictions on abortion on a right of privacy it imagined was implicit in the 14th Amendment. (In fact, as the lower court held then and the concurrance in Griswold held before, such a right would appear if anywhere in the Ninth Amendment, but even activist Supreme Court justices have been leery about giving it any teeth.) Roe essentially poisoned the concept of constitutionally guaranteed privacy for conservatives all through the growth of the personal computing and the web: Starting with Rehnquist's dissent, plans to overturn it usually come from arguing against its poor reasoning for an implicit right (mistakenly labelled "privacy" instead of the more appropriate "liberty" apparently only because it involves women) rather than its lackadaisical treatment of medical considerations or disinterest in allowing states to choose to protect prenatal life. Things may be changing with Trump being knocked off the socials, the kneecapping of Parler, and Carlson's current claims about the NSA but the originally cynical attempt to peel off some Catholic support from the Democrats ahead of the 1976 and '80 elections really has reshaped the Republican party and prominent 'Pubs can't reach for the most obvious weapon because it's welded to their party's third rail.

So things may improve in the US—especially given how broadly these laws have been copied internationally, how badly Big Tech keeps playing their hand, and how they've just started turning their guns on each other—but it will probably require the continued implosion of the Republican Party and continued grassroots fighting from the people who directed Sanders and Warren against their party's main leadership and donors. It's not likely to improve in the near term.

lly
  • 866
  • 7
  • 11
  • 1
    Assuming the serial downvotes on my old posts aren't just the result of an annoyed poster on the English stack, would the downvoter here mind explaining the problem? I provided fairly thorough links. – lly Jul 11 '21 at 12:54
  • 2
    If it's only prickiliness over nay-saying Roe, I'm actually with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in thinking it was a badly constructed decision. It doesn't mean I'm not pro-choice. – lly Jul 11 '21 at 13:09
  • So things may improve in the US => did you mean things might get worse in the US? Because introducing something like GDPR would force the economy to take a pretty big hit. – JonathanReez Jul 03 '23 at 13:32