Aren't you a big ole tough guy! Oh no, he was reported! Quick trying to make yourself feel important. If you want to do that, go talk to your mom.
Well, congratulations because I just reported your post. That's what you do when someone launches personal attacks. By the way, it's not portending to be a "tough guy" when one observes that if a person has been repeatedly banned, he might be the problem.
The issue is that he was trying to get access to information and people he didn't need to be messing with. His job was to monitor book access contracts, that's all
Not even that - his only job, as per the court order, is to verify that Apple has a program in place to train and inform employees about antitrust compliance. That's it. He has no mandate to investigate Apple's actions in any other way - under the court's order, he cannot look for evidence of antitrust violations, and he can't ask or report on Apple's negotiations with the music companies or the book publishers. All of that is outside his jurisdiction. He's either too stupid to understand that, or too egotistical to accept it.
The only reason the appeals court didn't remove him as monitor is because the Justice Department said that Bromwich's only duties would be to monitor whether Apple was educating its employees about antitrust laws. He hasn't been censured for violating those rules because Cote is the one who would have to censure him.
Well, what you personally think of a particular judge ... is not something that concerns anybody that matters.
Whether the privacy "spat" is as trivial as you would appear to want to believe is another matter. But by all means rely on your personal expertise in this area of law if it makes you feel good. You're completely wrong. But who cares ??
Ah, I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt.
But sadly, SpamSandwich was right: you're just a troll.
Bullshit ! You were just trying to score cheap points. If you get off on that ... enjoy it. It should come as no surprise to you to learn that I treat your opinions with supreme indifference.
But to get back to the actual facts that I was referring to.
The recent decision by the highest court in the EU is much more than a "spat". If anyone doubts that, I would suggest a simple google (or other search engine) search for the terms "ECJ Safe Harbor". That will provide more than enough info on the decision, the reasoning of the court, and the impact on US Companies importing EU Personal data in ANY context.
Now, unlike some Companies (Google, Microsoft come to mind, among others), Apple bases ist privacy policies with respect to the EU solely on the Safe Harbor treaty. As of 8-Oct that treaty is now invalidated. In the absence of another legitimation this means that any importation of EU personal data by Apple is illegal under EU law. That is simply a fact. Like it or not :-).
While there are other means of legitimizing such data transfers, including the implementation of Binding Corporate Rules (which need to be approved by the EU, and for which established procedures have existed for some years) or the implementation of data processing contracts based on the EU Standard Contractual clauses ... Apple does not currently follow either of these alternatives (and does not refer to these in the Apple privacy policies), so it is reasonable to conclude that Apple cannot satisfy the EU privacy law.
There is a worm in that apple :-) ... namely that even the EU Standard Contractual Clauses are unlikely to survive a similar challenge to that which killed Safe Harbor. In the end, it may turn out that the ONLY solution would be for Apple to seek and obtain authorization from each member country's data protection authority (28 in all). Even individual consent from the End Users may turn out to be inadequate (because it must be explicit and purpose-limited) and unreliable (it can be withdrawn at any time without reason).
The ECJ Ruling has some heavy caliber findings that will not easily be overcome. The most important of these, in my view, is that the Safe Harbor Treaty provides NO legal protection for EU Citizens against the actions of US authorities, including, but not limited to the NSA, FBI etc, and the court ruled that the lack of effective judicial remedies is a serious violation of Fundamental Rights of EU citizens. To meet the ECJ Requirements (which are binding on all EU Member Countries) and to enable the EU to conclude that the rights of EU Citizens are adequately protected in the US, the US Congress would need to pass laws which ensure that individual EU Citizens can take legal action against the US Government, in the US on the one hand, and to place clear and effective limits on the scope and context under which the US Government will be able to access EU Data. This is not going to happen. ... among other reasons, also because the rights of EU citizens in this respect in the EU are substantially better than the rights of US Citizens in the US. Think about that for a moment.
So the long and the short of it, is that Apple has a problem, that the problem is substantial and probably not easily resolved without legislation in the US. Whether Apple can buy this is an open question :-). Of course this is not an Apple-Specific problem except for the fact that Apple DID chose the easy way out by relying on the Safe Harbor treaty. That now turns out to be a rather foolish decision.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out ... and in my view that is a much greater issue than Bromwich :-). YMMV.
Now I personally could care less about any problems facing US companies in the field of Human rights issues. But to pretend that this is just a "spat" ... is just plain dumb.
Bullshit ! You were just trying to score cheap points. If you get off on that ... enjoy it. It should come as no surprise to you to learn that I treat your opinions with supreme indifference.
But to get back to the actual facts that I was referring to.
The recent decision by the highest court in the EU is much more than a "spat". If anyone doubts that, I would suggest a simple google (or other search engine) search for the terms "ECJ Safe Harbor". That will provide more than enough info on the decision, the reasoning of the court, and the impact on US Companies importing EU Personal data in ANY context.
Now, unlike some Companies (Google, Microsoft come to mind, among others), Apple bases ist privacy policies with respect to the EU solely on the Safe Harbor treaty. As of 8-Oct that treaty is now invalidated. In the absence of another legitimation this means that any importation of EU personal data by Apple is illegal under EU law. That is simply a fact. Like it or not :-).
While there are other means of legitimizing such data transfers, including the implementation of Binding Corporate Rules (which need to be approved by the EU, and for which established procedures have existed for some years) or the implementation of data processing contracts based on the EU Standard Contractual clauses ... Apple does not currently follow either of these alternatives (and does not refer to these in the Apple privacy policies), so it is reasonable to conclude that Apple cannot satisfy the EU privacy law.
There is a worm in that apple :-) ... namely that even the EU Standard Contractual Clauses are unlikely to survive a similar challenge to that which killed Safe Harbor. In the end, it may turn out that the ONLY solution would be for Apple to seek and obtain authorization from each member country's data protection authority (28 in all). Even individual consent from the End Users may turn out to be inadequate (because it must be explicit and purpose-limited) and unreliable (it can be withdrawn at any time without reason).
The ECJ Ruling has some heavy caliber findings that will not easily be overcome. The most important of these, in my view, is that the Safe Harbor Treaty provides NO legal protection for EU Citizens against the actions of US authorities, including, but not limited to the NSA, FBI etc, and the court ruled that the lack of effective judicial remedies is a serious violation of Fundamental Rights of EU citizens. To meet the ECJ Requirements (which are binding on all EU Member Countries) and to enable the EU to conclude that the rights of EU Citizens are adequately protected in the US, the US Congress would need to pass laws which ensure that individual EU Citizens can take legal action against the US Government, in the US on the one hand, and to place clear and effective limits on the scope and context under which the US Government will be able to access EU Data. This is not going to happen. ... among other reasons, also because the rights of EU citizens in this respect in the EU are substantially better than the rights of US Citizens in the US. Think about that for a moment.
So the long and the short of it, is that Apple has a problem, that the problem is substantial and probably not easily resolved without legislation in the US. Whether Apple can buy this is an open question :-). Of course this is not an Apple-Specific problem except for the fact that Apple DID chose the easy way out by relying on the Safe Harbor treaty. That now turns out to be a rather foolish decision.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out ... and in my view that is a much greater issue than Bromwich :-). YMMV.
Now I personally could care less about any problems facing US companies in the field of Human rights issues. But to pretend that this is just a "spat" ... is just plain dumb.
Bullshit yourself. You just wasted a lot of my time reading your utterly convoluted, repetitive, vacuous long-winded pap. All those words, and not one sentence on whether EU's privacy laws will mean jack**** for Apple cash flows there, given its business model. Short answer, it won't more than minimally. The only possible space where it could have an impact is on the way it manages content sales via its App and iTunes stores, but those are not huge for Apple, not its bread and butter (which is hardware sales).
Given Apple's stance towards privacy under Cook, the outcome you envisage actually gives him more cover to implement Apple's values there. In fact, compared to Google, Facebook, Amazon et al, this gives Apple competitive advantage in the EU.
I believe your mileage gas tank will come up empty.
At a larger level, privacy in the EU has become a bit of a joke anyway. The French, the Germans, the British, etc., we've learnt, spy as much (if not worse) on their own citizens than the US does on its. Moreover, they are all a bunch of gutless wonders that just bend over when Uncle Sam shows up with its subpoenas. Just read the news.
Oh golly, I sure wouldn't want to be labeled a troll by the likes of this forum. I'm so glad you aren't such a troll yourself that you didn't even bother responding to me...oh wait that isn't what happened. Are you reading this on that Kindle or one of those Windows computers? I've been banned before for speaking my mind here, because this forum is nothing more than sycophantic ranting about anyone or anything that dare challenge the notion apple isn't infallible. Congratulations on knowing how to use the word congratulations, my congratulations go out to you on this congratulatory occaision. Congratulations!!
Those of us who have been around for more than three days know your accusations about this aren't true. The problem is you have an extremely limited perspective.
As to your conduct, no one gets damaged banned for "sharing his opinion." One gets banned for personal attacks. Another words, one gets banned for being an a$$hole. You know what they say: if you can't figure out who the a$$hole in the group, it's probably you. Food for thought.
Yes, that the typical apple fanboy, who seems to dominate this forum, will defend apple to the end of the earth. Congratulations, you're the first person to prove my point.
Let's see...you joined in August, 2015. Two months ago. And you're qualified to speak about who "dominates" this forum? I've been posting her for more than 15 years, and I disagree. I was posting here while you were watching Power Rangers, gnawing on your goldfish crackers. So, go get your diaper changed and let the adults talk.
Bullshit ! You were just trying to score cheap points. If you get off on that ... enjoy it. It should come as no surprise to you to learn that I treat your opinions with supreme indifference.
But to get back to the actual facts that I was referring to.
The recent decision by the highest court in the EU is much more than a "spat". If anyone doubts that, I would suggest a simple google (or other search engine) search for the terms "ECJ Safe Harbor". That will provide more than enough info on the decision, the reasoning of the court, and the impact on US Companies importing EU Personal data in ANY context.
Now, unlike some Companies (Google, Microsoft come to mind, among others), Apple bases ist privacy policies with respect to the EU solely on the Safe Harbor treaty. As of 8-Oct that treaty is now invalidated. In the absence of another legitimation this means that any importation of EU personal data by Apple is illegal under EU law. That is simply a fact. Like it or not :-).
While there are other means of legitimizing such data transfers, including the implementation of Binding Corporate Rules (which need to be approved by the EU, and for which established procedures have existed for some years) or the implementation of data processing contracts based on the EU Standard Contractual clauses ... Apple does not currently follow either of these alternatives (and does not refer to these in the Apple privacy policies), so it is reasonable to conclude that Apple cannot satisfy the EU privacy law.
There is a worm in that apple :-) ... namely that even the EU Standard Contractual Clauses are unlikely to survive a similar challenge to that which killed Safe Harbor. In the end, it may turn out that the ONLY solution would be for Apple to seek and obtain authorization from each member country's data protection authority (28 in all). Even individual consent from the End Users may turn out to be inadequate (because it must be explicit and purpose-limited) and unreliable (it can be withdrawn at any time without reason).
The ECJ Ruling has some heavy caliber findings that will not easily be overcome. The most important of these, in my view, is that the Safe Harbor Treaty provides NO legal protection for EU Citizens against the actions of US authorities, including, but not limited to the NSA, FBI etc, and the court ruled that the lack of effective judicial remedies is a serious violation of Fundamental Rights of EU citizens. To meet the ECJ Requirements (which are binding on all EU Member Countries) and to enable the EU to conclude that the rights of EU Citizens are adequately protected in the US, the US Congress would need to pass laws which ensure that individual EU Citizens can take legal action against the US Government, in the US on the one hand, and to place clear and effective limits on the scope and context under which the US Government will be able to access EU Data. This is not going to happen. ... among other reasons, also because the rights of EU citizens in this respect in the EU are substantially better than the rights of US Citizens in the US. Think about that for a moment.
So the long and the short of it, is that Apple has a problem, that the problem is substantial and probably not easily resolved without legislation in the US. Whether Apple can buy this is an open question :-). Of course this is not an Apple-Specific problem except for the fact that Apple DID chose the easy way out by relying on the Safe Harbor treaty. That now turns out to be a rather foolish decision.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out ... and in my view that is a much greater issue than Bromwich :-). YMMV.
Now I personally could care less about any problems facing US companies in the field of Human rights issues. But to pretend that this is just a "spat" ... is just plain dumb.
Bullshit yourself. You just wasted a lot of my time reading your utterly convoluted, repetitive, vacuous long-winded pap. All those words, and not one sentence on whether EU's privacy laws will mean jack**** for Apple cash flows there, given its business model. Short answer, it won't more than minimally. The only possible space where it could have an impact is on the way it manages content sales via its App and iTunes stores, but those are not huge for Apple, not its bread and butter (which is hardware sales).
Given Apple's stance towards privacy under Cook, the outcome you envisage actually gives him more cover to implement Apple's values there. In fact, compared to Google, Facebook, Amazon et al, this gives Apple competitive advantage in the EU.
I believe your mileage gas tank will come up empty.
At a larger level, privacy in the EU has become a bit of a joke anyway. The French, the Germans, the British, etc., we've learnt, spy as much (if not worse) on their own citizens than the US does on its. Moreover, they are all a bunch of gutless wonders that just bend over when Uncle Sam shows up with its subpoenas. Just read the news.
You're just posturing again. I have already said that I am supremely indifferent to your opinions. There's not much to add to that. You do not give the impression that you have actually read the ECJ Ruling, nor that you have any understanding of the law or the consequences of this ruling. You are out of your depth. People who'se expertise in the field is undisputed are now beginning to provide some insights into the impact of this whole affair. One example is Peter Scharr (The recently retired Federal Data Protection Officer in Germany) who recently commented that this decision will likely kill all transfers of personal information from the EU to the USA. Other legal experts have voiced similar concerns, and even the White House has bleated its deep disappointment on the ruling. Now if that's true (and one can speculate in any direction, but the ONLY authority that counts is the ECJ itself), then the Impact on Apple's business model in the EU will be "thermonuclear". For example, the transfer of HR data for Apple Employees in the EU to HQ in the US would be illegal and subject to massive sanctions and criminal prosecution. Yes, you CAN go to jail in the EU for wilfull violation of privacy law.
You're just posturing again. I have already said that I am supremely indifferent to your opinions. There's not much to add to that. You do not give the impression that you have actually read the ECJ Ruling, nor that you have any understanding of the law or the consequences of this ruling. You are out of your depth. People who'se expertise in the field is undisputed are now beginning to provide some insights into the impact of this whole affair. One example is Peter Scharr (The recently retired Federal Data Protection Officer in Germany) who recently commented that this decision will likely kill all transfers of personal information from the EU to the USA. Other legal experts have voiced similar concerns, and even the White House has bleated its deep disappointment on the ruling. Now if that's true (and one can speculate in any direction, but the ONLY authority that counts is the ECJ itself), then the Impact on Apple's business model in the EU will be "thermonuclear". For example, the transfer of HR data for Apple Employees in the EU to HQ in the US would be illegal and subject to massive sanctions and criminal prosecution. Yes, you CAN go to jail in the EU for wilfull violation of privacy law.
I appreciate your editing your prior response of ad hominems.
For all the words you've dispensed so far, you still have not provided one iota of explanation or argumentation regarding how this affects Apple any worse than other US companies (when it comes to things such as HR data), and why other US companies that depend on mining customer data for the cash flows (e.g., Google, Facebook, Amazon) will not be affected much worse than Apple is, since Apple has no use for such data to drive its business model (except for minor things like activating Genius in iTunes).
It appears that for all your bluster and claim to authority, you have no argument. Period. You keep asserting the same nonsense in every post, and somehow expect it'll stick.
Btw, you've already said you're "indifferent" to my viewpoint at least twice, and yet, you keep posting vacuous essays as responses to my posts. I'd be perfectly happy if you stayed indifferent to my posts (and the site), and did not reply!
Comments
Well, congratulations because I just reported your post. That's what you do when someone launches personal attacks. By the way, it's not portending to be a "tough guy" when one observes that if a person has been repeatedly banned, he might be the problem.
The issue is that he was trying to get access to information and people he didn't need to be messing with. His job was to monitor book access contracts, that's all
Not even that - his only job, as per the court order, is to verify that Apple has a program in place to train and inform employees about antitrust compliance. That's it. He has no mandate to investigate Apple's actions in any other way - under the court's order, he cannot look for evidence of antitrust violations, and he can't ask or report on Apple's negotiations with the music companies or the book publishers. All of that is outside his jurisdiction. He's either too stupid to understand that, or too egotistical to accept it.
The only reason the appeals court didn't remove him as monitor is because the Justice Department said that Bromwich's only duties would be to monitor whether Apple was educating its employees about antitrust laws. He hasn't been censured for violating those rules because Cote is the one who would have to censure him.
Well, what you personally think of a particular judge ... is not something that concerns anybody that matters.
Whether the privacy "spat" is as trivial as you would appear to want to believe is another matter. But by all means rely on your personal expertise in this area of law if it makes you feel good. You're completely wrong. But who cares ??
Ah, I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt.
But sadly, SpamSandwich was right: you're just a troll.
Bullshit ! You were just trying to score cheap points. If you get off on that ... enjoy it. It should come as no surprise to you to learn that I treat your opinions with supreme indifference.
But to get back to the actual facts that I was referring to.
The recent decision by the highest court in the EU is much more than a "spat". If anyone doubts that, I would suggest a simple google (or other search engine) search for the terms "ECJ Safe Harbor". That will provide more than enough info on the decision, the reasoning of the court, and the impact on US Companies importing EU Personal data in ANY context.
Now, unlike some Companies (Google, Microsoft come to mind, among others), Apple bases ist privacy policies with respect to the EU solely on the Safe Harbor treaty. As of 8-Oct that treaty is now invalidated. In the absence of another legitimation this means that any importation of EU personal data by Apple is illegal under EU law. That is simply a fact. Like it or not :-).
While there are other means of legitimizing such data transfers, including the implementation of Binding Corporate Rules (which need to be approved by the EU, and for which established procedures have existed for some years) or the implementation of data processing contracts based on the EU Standard Contractual clauses ... Apple does not currently follow either of these alternatives (and does not refer to these in the Apple privacy policies), so it is reasonable to conclude that Apple cannot satisfy the EU privacy law.
There is a worm in that apple :-) ... namely that even the EU Standard Contractual Clauses are unlikely to survive a similar challenge to that which killed Safe Harbor. In the end, it may turn out that the ONLY solution would be for Apple to seek and obtain authorization from each member country's data protection authority (28 in all). Even individual consent from the End Users may turn out to be inadequate (because it must be explicit and purpose-limited) and unreliable (it can be withdrawn at any time without reason).
The ECJ Ruling has some heavy caliber findings that will not easily be overcome. The most important of these, in my view, is that the Safe Harbor Treaty provides NO legal protection for EU Citizens against the actions of US authorities, including, but not limited to the NSA, FBI etc, and the court ruled that the lack of effective judicial remedies is a serious violation of Fundamental Rights of EU citizens. To meet the ECJ Requirements (which are binding on all EU Member Countries) and to enable the EU to conclude that the rights of EU Citizens are adequately protected in the US, the US Congress would need to pass laws which ensure that individual EU Citizens can take legal action against the US Government, in the US on the one hand, and to place clear and effective limits on the scope and context under which the US Government will be able to access EU Data. This is not going to happen. ... among other reasons, also because the rights of EU citizens in this respect in the EU are substantially better than the rights of US Citizens in the US. Think about that for a moment.
So the long and the short of it, is that Apple has a problem, that the problem is substantial and probably not easily resolved without legislation in the US. Whether Apple can buy this is an open question :-). Of course this is not an Apple-Specific problem except for the fact that Apple DID chose the easy way out by relying on the Safe Harbor treaty. That now turns out to be a rather foolish decision.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out ... and in my view that is a much greater issue than Bromwich :-). YMMV.
Now I personally could care less about any problems facing US companies in the field of Human rights issues. But to pretend that this is just a "spat" ... is just plain dumb.
Bullshit yourself. You just wasted a lot of my time reading your utterly convoluted, repetitive, vacuous long-winded pap. All those words, and not one sentence on whether EU's privacy laws will mean jack**** for Apple cash flows there, given its business model. Short answer, it won't more than minimally. The only possible space where it could have an impact is on the way it manages content sales via its App and iTunes stores, but those are not huge for Apple, not its bread and butter (which is hardware sales).
Given Apple's stance towards privacy under Cook, the outcome you envisage actually gives him more cover to implement Apple's values there. In fact, compared to Google, Facebook, Amazon et al, this gives Apple competitive advantage in the EU.
I believe your
mileagegas tank will come up empty.At a larger level, privacy in the EU has become a bit of a joke anyway. The French, the Germans, the British, etc., we've learnt, spy as much (if not worse) on their own citizens than the US does on its. Moreover, they are all a bunch of gutless wonders that just bend over when Uncle Sam shows up with its subpoenas. Just read the news.
Those of us who have been around for more than three days know your accusations about this aren't true. The problem is you have an extremely limited perspective.
As to your conduct, no one gets damaged banned for "sharing his opinion." One gets banned for personal attacks. Another words, one gets banned for being an a$$hole. You know what they say: if you can't figure out who the a$$hole in the group, it's probably you. Food for thought.
Let's see...you joined in August, 2015. Two months ago. And you're qualified to speak about who "dominates" this forum? I've been posting her for more than 15 years, and I disagree. I was posting here while you were watching Power Rangers, gnawing on your goldfish crackers. So, go get your diaper changed and let the adults talk.
Bullshit ! You were just trying to score cheap points. If you get off on that ... enjoy it. It should come as no surprise to you to learn that I treat your opinions with supreme indifference.
But to get back to the actual facts that I was referring to.
The recent decision by the highest court in the EU is much more than a "spat". If anyone doubts that, I would suggest a simple google (or other search engine) search for the terms "ECJ Safe Harbor". That will provide more than enough info on the decision, the reasoning of the court, and the impact on US Companies importing EU Personal data in ANY context.
Now, unlike some Companies (Google, Microsoft come to mind, among others), Apple bases ist privacy policies with respect to the EU solely on the Safe Harbor treaty. As of 8-Oct that treaty is now invalidated. In the absence of another legitimation this means that any importation of EU personal data by Apple is illegal under EU law. That is simply a fact. Like it or not :-).
While there are other means of legitimizing such data transfers, including the implementation of Binding Corporate Rules (which need to be approved by the EU, and for which established procedures have existed for some years) or the implementation of data processing contracts based on the EU Standard Contractual clauses ... Apple does not currently follow either of these alternatives (and does not refer to these in the Apple privacy policies), so it is reasonable to conclude that Apple cannot satisfy the EU privacy law.
There is a worm in that apple :-) ... namely that even the EU Standard Contractual Clauses are unlikely to survive a similar challenge to that which killed Safe Harbor. In the end, it may turn out that the ONLY solution would be for Apple to seek and obtain authorization from each member country's data protection authority (28 in all). Even individual consent from the End Users may turn out to be inadequate (because it must be explicit and purpose-limited) and unreliable (it can be withdrawn at any time without reason).
The ECJ Ruling has some heavy caliber findings that will not easily be overcome. The most important of these, in my view, is that the Safe Harbor Treaty provides NO legal protection for EU Citizens against the actions of US authorities, including, but not limited to the NSA, FBI etc, and the court ruled that the lack of effective judicial remedies is a serious violation of Fundamental Rights of EU citizens. To meet the ECJ Requirements (which are binding on all EU Member Countries) and to enable the EU to conclude that the rights of EU Citizens are adequately protected in the US, the US Congress would need to pass laws which ensure that individual EU Citizens can take legal action against the US Government, in the US on the one hand, and to place clear and effective limits on the scope and context under which the US Government will be able to access EU Data. This is not going to happen. ... among other reasons, also because the rights of EU citizens in this respect in the EU are substantially better than the rights of US Citizens in the US. Think about that for a moment.
So the long and the short of it, is that Apple has a problem, that the problem is substantial and probably not easily resolved without legislation in the US. Whether Apple can buy this is an open question :-). Of course this is not an Apple-Specific problem except for the fact that Apple DID chose the easy way out by relying on the Safe Harbor treaty. That now turns out to be a rather foolish decision.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out ... and in my view that is a much greater issue than Bromwich :-). YMMV.
Now I personally could care less about any problems facing US companies in the field of Human rights issues. But to pretend that this is just a "spat" ... is just plain dumb.
Bullshit yourself. You just wasted a lot of my time reading your utterly convoluted, repetitive, vacuous long-winded pap. All those words, and not one sentence on whether EU's privacy laws will mean jack**** for Apple cash flows there, given its business model. Short answer, it won't more than minimally. The only possible space where it could have an impact is on the way it manages content sales via its App and iTunes stores, but those are not huge for Apple, not its bread and butter (which is hardware sales).
Given Apple's stance towards privacy under Cook, the outcome you envisage actually gives him more cover to implement Apple's values there. In fact, compared to Google, Facebook, Amazon et al, this gives Apple competitive advantage in the EU.
I believe your mileage gas tank will come up empty.
At a larger level, privacy in the EU has become a bit of a joke anyway. The French, the Germans, the British, etc., we've learnt, spy as much (if not worse) on their own citizens than the US does on its. Moreover, they are all a bunch of gutless wonders that just bend over when Uncle Sam shows up with its subpoenas. Just read the news.
You're just posturing again. I have already said that I am supremely indifferent to your opinions. There's not much to add to that. You do not give the impression that you have actually read the ECJ Ruling, nor that you have any understanding of the law or the consequences of this ruling. You are out of your depth. People who'se expertise in the field is undisputed are now beginning to provide some insights into the impact of this whole affair. One example is Peter Scharr (The recently retired Federal Data Protection Officer in Germany) who recently commented that this decision will likely kill all transfers of personal information from the EU to the USA. Other legal experts have voiced similar concerns, and even the White House has bleated its deep disappointment on the ruling. Now if that's true (and one can speculate in any direction, but the ONLY authority that counts is the ECJ itself), then the Impact on Apple's business model in the EU will be "thermonuclear". For example, the transfer of HR data for Apple Employees in the EU to HQ in the US would be illegal and subject to massive sanctions and criminal prosecution. Yes, you CAN go to jail in the EU for wilfull violation of privacy law.
You're just posturing again. I have already said that I am supremely indifferent to your opinions. There's not much to add to that. You do not give the impression that you have actually read the ECJ Ruling, nor that you have any understanding of the law or the consequences of this ruling. You are out of your depth. People who'se expertise in the field is undisputed are now beginning to provide some insights into the impact of this whole affair. One example is Peter Scharr (The recently retired Federal Data Protection Officer in Germany) who recently commented that this decision will likely kill all transfers of personal information from the EU to the USA. Other legal experts have voiced similar concerns, and even the White House has bleated its deep disappointment on the ruling. Now if that's true (and one can speculate in any direction, but the ONLY authority that counts is the ECJ itself), then the Impact on Apple's business model in the EU will be "thermonuclear". For example, the transfer of HR data for Apple Employees in the EU to HQ in the US would be illegal and subject to massive sanctions and criminal prosecution. Yes, you CAN go to jail in the EU for wilfull violation of privacy law.
I appreciate your editing your prior response of ad hominems.
For all the words you've dispensed so far, you still have not provided one iota of explanation or argumentation regarding how this affects Apple any worse than other US companies (when it comes to things such as HR data), and why other US companies that depend on mining customer data for the cash flows (e.g., Google, Facebook, Amazon) will not be affected much worse than Apple is, since Apple has no use for such data to drive its business model (except for minor things like activating Genius in iTunes).
It appears that for all your bluster and claim to authority, you have no argument. Period. You keep asserting the same nonsense in every post, and somehow expect it'll stick.
Btw, you've already said you're "indifferent" to my viewpoint at least twice, and yet, you keep posting vacuous essays as responses to my posts. I'd be perfectly happy if you stayed indifferent to my posts (and the site), and did not reply!