Law in the Internet Society

View   r3  >  r2  >  r1
CostanzaDejanaSecondEssay 3 - 22 Jan 2025 - Main.CostanzaDejana
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"

GDPR vs. US Privacy Law: A Comparative Analysis

Changed:
<
<
-- By CostanzaDejana - 02 Dec 2024
>
>
-- By CostanzaDejana - 21 Jan 2025
 

Introduction

Changed:
<
<
The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and the sectoral approach to the regulation of privacy in the United States are very different. While the former takes a comprehensive, rights-based approach, the latter takes a patchwork system more focused on economic growth and innovation. I will try to examine these regimes, compare the effectiveness of each, and discuss what they can learn from each other to meet the demands an increasingly globalized society places on these regulations.
>
>
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the United States’ sectoral approach to privacy regulation represent two contrasting paradigms. While the GDPR claims to provide a comprehensive framework for data protection, the US system relies on a fragmented, industry-specific approach. However, closer analysis reveals that neither system is entirely successful in safeguarding individual privacy. This essay examines the core principles and flaws of both frameworks and explores whether they meet the demands of our increasingly interconnected world.
 
Changed:
<
<

Privacy Law

What's the main purpose of privacy law? I'd say: to make sure that personal information is duly protected, and those in charge of collecting and processing it are responsible for such material. The Europeans consider privacy a fundamental right of humans; it forms part of their culture and is deeply enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. These have formed the backbone of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) that came into effect in 2018 to create one single robust system to protect data across EU member states. The US, on the other hand, does not have one single federal privacy law regulating data protection across the board. In contrast, privacy regulation is sectoral and even varies from state to state. This is a reflection of an American preference for free-market principles and limited government intervention. While this provides room for flexibility, this kind of decentralized approach is also fraught with inconsistencies and lack of enforcement. Traditionally, privacy laws in the US have been reactive rather than part of a proactive and all-inclusive strategy. The GDPR has been revolutionary in global privacy law, setting a high watermark for how personal data should be processed. It applies not only to organizations within the EU but also to any company that processes the personal data of EU residents, no matter where they are located. This extraterritorial scope makes GDPR a global influence.

GDPR

Some of the key principles under GDPR include: (i) Data Minimization: organizations should not collect data other than that which is absolutely necessary for certain purposes; (ii) the Right to Be Forgotten: under specific circumstances, individuals are entitled to request the erasure of their personal information; (iii) Consent: when companies want to obtain or use data, consent should be explicit and knowledgeable; (iv) Data Breach Notifications: Organizations, in case of a breach, shall notify the concerned authorities within 72 hours; (v) Enforcement and Penalties: the penalty for non-compliance may be as high as ¤20 million or, in the case of a company, up to 4% of its total worldwide annual turnover; and (vi) the GDPR creates DPAs in every state of the EU to supervise conformity. They are expected to operate separately under their respective laws and together cooperate for harmony. The criticism regarding GDPR is that its intricacy and high expenditure costs even burden the small business enterprises immensely. No doubt, with regards to bringing data privacy in everyone's eye in this world was done with the help of it, in every business.

US Approach

Regulation in the United States is much less centralized. It is industry-specific and in some instances state-by-state. It certainly is consistent with a more free-market view where economic development might take precedent over oversight. Key Federal Laws Include: 1. California Consumer Privacy Act: CCPA grants rights to the residents of California most similar to those given to the residents by GDPR. Precisely, people have a right to see their information and request deletion of their information. 2. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act: Concerns information collection from children under 13 years, for which parental consent is required. 3. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): Regulates how health information is stored and shared. State laws add even more complexity, such as the Consumer Data Protection Act of Virginia - VCDPA - and Colorado's Privacy Act. And so, without a federal rule, it really does get very, very cumbersome to maintain state-by-state compliance for an enterprise. In most cases, the US system allows economic flexibility rather than strictly protecting the privacy of individuals. The mechanisms of enforcement are weaker; penalties for non-compliance are not as serious as in GDPR. This reduces the incentive for businesses to apply fully the standards of privacy.
>
>

Privacy Law: A Misconstrued Purpose

At its core, privacy law should aim to protect individuals from the harmful externalities of data misuse. Yet, neither GDPR nor US privacy laws effectively achieve this goal. The GDPR, often described as a rights-based approach, is more accurately a consent mechanism that prioritizes procedural compliance over substantive protections. While its principles—such as data minimization and the right to be forgotten—appear robust on paper, the regulation’s focus on individual consent creates significant blind spots. Consent-based systems fail to address the ecological nature of privacy, wherein the actions of one individual (e.g., agreeing to data collection) can negatively affect others (e.g., enabling surveillance networks). In contrast, US federal privacy law is a deliberately engineered “no-law” system that subsidizes surveillance capitalism by placing minimal restrictions on data collection and use. This approach reflects historical and political priorities: protecting economic innovation and corporate interests. Despite its fragmented nature, US law does include sector-specific exceptions, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). However, these laws are narrowly tailored and fail to provide a coherent framework for privacy protection.
 
Changed:
<
<

Comparison

It considers the right to privacy a fundamental right of humans and part of the basic building block of society. On the other hand, the US treats the concept of privacy more as an issue of consumer protection and weighs it against the imperative for innovation and economic growth. This, in turn, makes the GDPR framework predictable for businesses operating throughout the EU, following one rulebook, whereas in the US, its patchwork approach in many business cases requires following various different laws, which most of the time are too burdensome and inefficient. While substantial fines and independent DPAs form part of the enforcement mechanics, GDPR indeed guarantees compliance. Penalties are not strong in the US, and the enforcement is pretty inconsistent, undermining consumer trust. Even as the GDPR presents higher compliance costs, it grants more transparency to people about their data. This system is more business-friendly, but this far too frequently comes at the high cost of consumer privacy. GDPR enforces rigid requirements on data transfers outside the EU, putting "adequacy" standards on third countries. This has made transatlantic data flows very difficult, hence the agreements such as the EU-US Data Privacy Framework that is still controversial. The US, in turn, takes a more business-friendly approach by allowing more flexibility in cross-border data sharing.

Conclusion

The comprehensive structure reflected in the GDPR represents Europe's commitment to privacy as a human right, while flexibility and innovation remain in hand in the US system. As the digital landscape continuously changes, both systems can really learn from each other-some added flexibility for Europe, maybe, and some more harmony for the US approach. The right way to tackle the nuances of privacy in the online world is to cooperate across borders - since in they online world, they don't exist.
>
>

GDPR: Myths and Realities

The GDPR’s reputation as a champion of privacy is misleading. Contrary to popular belief, it does not safeguard privacy as a fundamental human right. It imposes no meaningful limitations on covert government surveillance or international espionage, leaving citizens vulnerable to state-level privacy violations. Instead, the GDPR’s primary function is to regulate the relationship between businesses and consumers through consent. Key principles such as the right to be forgotten and data minimization are undermined by the regulation’s structural flaws. For instance, the GDPR allows multinational corporations to engage in regulatory arbitrage, choosing enforcement jurisdictions with the weakest oversight. This “race to the bottom” minimizes accountability and undermines the regulation’s effectiveness. Moreover, the focus on individual consent—often obtained through opaque and coercive mechanisms—fails to address the broader societal consequences of data collection, such as pervasive surveillance and erosion of trust.
 
Deleted:
<
<
Essentially inaccurate, though it does embody every single cliche available in the literature. Let's take a few basic points:
 
Changed:
<
<
1. GDPR shows no respect whatever for "privacy as a human right." It does not set any limitation whatever on covert government spying on citizens or other humans. It provides no protection against state-level spying by outsiders, or set any rule-of-law limitations on government behavior. That's not human rights law at all.
>
>

US Approach: Innovation over Privacy

US privacy law reflects a free-market ethos that prioritizes innovation and economic flexibility over individual privacy. By avoiding comprehensive federal regulation, the US system creates a permissive environment for data-driven industries to flourish. However, this comes at a significant cost. The lack of robust enforcement mechanisms and meaningful penalties reduces incentives for compliance, leaving consumers exposed to exploitation. While certain state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), attempt to bridge the gap, they lack the coherence and reach of a federal framework. Additionally, the US approach to consent—an opt-out system—offers little practical protection. Most individuals fail to opt out due to the complexity and inconvenience of the process, resulting in widespread data collection with minimal oversight. Ironically, this mirrors the GDPR’s “I agree” mechanism, where consent is perfunctory rather than informed.
 
Deleted:
<
<
2. GDPR is a consent mechanism, not a privacy statute. As I spent more than a little time in the course explaining, privacy is an environmental or ecological set of problems. We do not believe that people can give individual consent to breathe poisonous air or drink toxic water. Once individual consent has been obtained, GDPR-compliant domestic legal and all technological systems are essentially indifferent to the negative externalities for third parties created by conduct to which people have been bribed or cheated into consenting.
 
Changed:
<
<
3. GDPR is a race-to-the-bottom system of regulatory minimization, in which multinational parties get to choose in which European jurisdiction the only party charged with enforcing rules against them will be placed. Erin go bragh.

4. US federal privacy law is a carefully-engineered "no law" system, designed to provide an enormous public subsidy to surveillance capitalism, profoundly similar to the system of private-law "subsidy by immunity" for industrial development in antebellum American law classically described by Morton J. Horwitz in the first volume of The Transformation of American Law. This "no law" system is every bit as complete and intricately-maintained as the European "GDPR" system, including a small number of exceptions, some—like rukes about videotape rental records—essentially trivial and arbitrary; some—like regualtions about educational or health care records—historical or political eccentricities. The US does have, on the other hand, relatively robust limitations on government listening.

>
>

Comparison

The operational differences between GDPR and US privacy law are less significant than their proponents claim. Both systems ultimately fail to prevent the widespread commodification of personal data. The GDPR’s extraterritorial reach and stringent penalties create an illusion of control but do little to address systemic issues such as regulatory arbitrage and state surveillance. Similarly, the US’s patchwork approach sacrifices coherence for flexibility, allowing corporations to prioritize profits over privacy. In both frameworks, the emphasis on individual consent obscures the collective nature of privacy harms. This ecological dimension of privacy demands regulatory approaches that address the externalities of data collection and use, rather than merely formalizing consent processes. For example, neither system adequately addresses the societal impact of surveillance capitalism, where data collection fuels manipulative advertising, political polarization, and economic inequality.
 
Deleted:
<
<
The actual operational difference in the real lives of human beings is that in the US one has to send an "opt-out" notice while in the EU one has to check the box marked "I agree." As a result, no one in the US opts out and everyone in the EU agrees and everyone's privacy is completely destroyed equally. Of course it's fine with me for you to continue believing all the EUphemisims if you find the self-deceptions comforting. But the primary route to improvement of the draft is for it not to ignore completely all the real objections to doing so.
 
Changed:
<
<
>
>

What Can Be Learned?

A truly effective privacy regime would transcend the limitations of both GDPR and US law. From the GDPR, the US could adopt principles such as data minimization and explicit breach notifications to enhance transparency. Conversely, the EU could benefit from the US’s relative restraint in government surveillance, which includes stronger limitations on state-level eavesdropping. However, meaningful reform requires a fundamental shift in how privacy is conceptualized and regulated. Rather than focusing on consent, policymakers should prioritize structural solutions that address the root causes of privacy violations. These could include: 1) Decentralized Data Governance: Shifting control over personal data from corporations to individuals or community-based entities; 2) Strong Oversight Mechanisms: Establishing independent regulatory bodies with the authority to enforce privacy standards globally; and 3) Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating citizens about the societal implications of data collection and empowering them to advocate for stronger protections.
  \ No newline at end of file
Added:
>
>

Conclusion

The GDPR and US privacy law exemplify two flawed approaches to data protection. While the GDPR’s comprehensive framework and the US’s flexible system have their merits, both fail to address the ecological nature of privacy harms. Moving forward, a hybrid approach that combines robust structural protections with flexibility for innovation may offer a path toward meaningful privacy reform. However, this will require international cooperation and a willingness to challenge entrenched economic and political interests. In a globalized digital landscape, privacy is not merely a matter of individual choice but a shared responsibility that demands collective action.

CostanzaDejanaSecondEssay 2 - 07 Jan 2025 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"

GDPR vs. US Privacy Law: A Comparative Analysis

Line: 29 to 29
 

Conclusion

The comprehensive structure reflected in the GDPR represents Europe's commitment to privacy as a human right, while flexibility and innovation remain in hand in the US system. As the digital landscape continuously changes, both systems can really learn from each other-some added flexibility for Europe, maybe, and some more harmony for the US approach. The right way to tackle the nuances of privacy in the online world is to cooperate across borders - since in they online world, they don't exist.
Added:
>
>
Essentially inaccurate, though it does embody every single cliche available in the literature. Let's take a few basic points:

1. GDPR shows no respect whatever for "privacy as a human right." It does not set any limitation whatever on covert government spying on citizens or other humans. It provides no protection against state-level spying by outsiders, or set any rule-of-law limitations on government behavior. That's not human rights law at all.

2. GDPR is a consent mechanism, not a privacy statute. As I spent more than a little time in the course explaining, privacy is an environmental or ecological set of problems. We do not believe that people can give individual consent to breathe poisonous air or drink toxic water. Once individual consent has been obtained, GDPR-compliant domestic legal and all technological systems are essentially indifferent to the negative externalities for third parties created by conduct to which people have been bribed or cheated into consenting.

3. GDPR is a race-to-the-bottom system of regulatory minimization, in which multinational parties get to choose in which European jurisdiction the only party charged with enforcing rules against them will be placed. Erin go bragh.

4. US federal privacy law is a carefully-engineered "no law" system, designed to provide an enormous public subsidy to surveillance capitalism, profoundly similar to the system of private-law "subsidy by immunity" for industrial development in antebellum American law classically described by Morton J. Horwitz in the first volume of The Transformation of American Law. This "no law" system is every bit as complete and intricately-maintained as the European "GDPR" system, including a small number of exceptions, some—like rukes about videotape rental records—essentially trivial and arbitrary; some—like regualtions about educational or health care records—historical or political eccentricities. The US does have, on the other hand, relatively robust limitations on government listening.

The actual operational difference in the real lives of human beings is that in the US one has to send an "opt-out" notice while in the EU one has to check the box marked "I agree." As a result, no one in the US opts out and everyone in the EU agrees and everyone's privacy is completely destroyed equally. Of course it's fine with me for you to continue believing all the EUphemisims if you find the self-deceptions comforting. But the primary route to improvement of the draft is for it not to ignore completely all the real objections to doing so.

 \ No newline at end of file

CostanzaDejanaSecondEssay 1 - 03 Dec 2024 - Main.CostanzaDejana
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"

GDPR vs. US Privacy Law: A Comparative Analysis

-- By CostanzaDejana - 02 Dec 2024

Introduction

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and the sectoral approach to the regulation of privacy in the United States are very different. While the former takes a comprehensive, rights-based approach, the latter takes a patchwork system more focused on economic growth and innovation. I will try to examine these regimes, compare the effectiveness of each, and discuss what they can learn from each other to meet the demands an increasingly globalized society places on these regulations.

Privacy Law

What's the main purpose of privacy law? I'd say: to make sure that personal information is duly protected, and those in charge of collecting and processing it are responsible for such material. The Europeans consider privacy a fundamental right of humans; it forms part of their culture and is deeply enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. These have formed the backbone of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) that came into effect in 2018 to create one single robust system to protect data across EU member states. The US, on the other hand, does not have one single federal privacy law regulating data protection across the board. In contrast, privacy regulation is sectoral and even varies from state to state. This is a reflection of an American preference for free-market principles and limited government intervention. While this provides room for flexibility, this kind of decentralized approach is also fraught with inconsistencies and lack of enforcement. Traditionally, privacy laws in the US have been reactive rather than part of a proactive and all-inclusive strategy. The GDPR has been revolutionary in global privacy law, setting a high watermark for how personal data should be processed. It applies not only to organizations within the EU but also to any company that processes the personal data of EU residents, no matter where they are located. This extraterritorial scope makes GDPR a global influence.

GDPR

Some of the key principles under GDPR include: (i) Data Minimization: organizations should not collect data other than that which is absolutely necessary for certain purposes; (ii) the Right to Be Forgotten: under specific circumstances, individuals are entitled to request the erasure of their personal information; (iii) Consent: when companies want to obtain or use data, consent should be explicit and knowledgeable; (iv) Data Breach Notifications: Organizations, in case of a breach, shall notify the concerned authorities within 72 hours; (v) Enforcement and Penalties: the penalty for non-compliance may be as high as ¤20 million or, in the case of a company, up to 4% of its total worldwide annual turnover; and (vi) the GDPR creates DPAs in every state of the EU to supervise conformity. They are expected to operate separately under their respective laws and together cooperate for harmony. The criticism regarding GDPR is that its intricacy and high expenditure costs even burden the small business enterprises immensely. No doubt, with regards to bringing data privacy in everyone's eye in this world was done with the help of it, in every business.

US Approach

Regulation in the United States is much less centralized. It is industry-specific and in some instances state-by-state. It certainly is consistent with a more free-market view where economic development might take precedent over oversight. Key Federal Laws Include: 1. California Consumer Privacy Act: CCPA grants rights to the residents of California most similar to those given to the residents by GDPR. Precisely, people have a right to see their information and request deletion of their information. 2. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act: Concerns information collection from children under 13 years, for which parental consent is required. 3. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): Regulates how health information is stored and shared. State laws add even more complexity, such as the Consumer Data Protection Act of Virginia - VCDPA - and Colorado's Privacy Act. And so, without a federal rule, it really does get very, very cumbersome to maintain state-by-state compliance for an enterprise. In most cases, the US system allows economic flexibility rather than strictly protecting the privacy of individuals. The mechanisms of enforcement are weaker; penalties for non-compliance are not as serious as in GDPR. This reduces the incentive for businesses to apply fully the standards of privacy.

Comparison

It considers the right to privacy a fundamental right of humans and part of the basic building block of society. On the other hand, the US treats the concept of privacy more as an issue of consumer protection and weighs it against the imperative for innovation and economic growth. This, in turn, makes the GDPR framework predictable for businesses operating throughout the EU, following one rulebook, whereas in the US, its patchwork approach in many business cases requires following various different laws, which most of the time are too burdensome and inefficient. While substantial fines and independent DPAs form part of the enforcement mechanics, GDPR indeed guarantees compliance. Penalties are not strong in the US, and the enforcement is pretty inconsistent, undermining consumer trust. Even as the GDPR presents higher compliance costs, it grants more transparency to people about their data. This system is more business-friendly, but this far too frequently comes at the high cost of consumer privacy. GDPR enforces rigid requirements on data transfers outside the EU, putting "adequacy" standards on third countries. This has made transatlantic data flows very difficult, hence the agreements such as the EU-US Data Privacy Framework that is still controversial. The US, in turn, takes a more business-friendly approach by allowing more flexibility in cross-border data sharing.

Conclusion

The comprehensive structure reflected in the GDPR represents Europe's commitment to privacy as a human right, while flexibility and innovation remain in hand in the US system. As the digital landscape continuously changes, both systems can really learn from each other-some added flexibility for Europe, maybe, and some more harmony for the US approach. The right way to tackle the nuances of privacy in the online world is to cooperate across borders - since in they online world, they don't exist.

Revision 3r3 - 22 Jan 2025 - 00:32:15 - CostanzaDejana
Revision 2r2 - 07 Jan 2025 - 16:28:56 - EbenMoglen
Revision 1r1 - 03 Dec 2024 - 01:23:36 - CostanzaDejana
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM