The two of the biggest tech companies in the world Apple and Facebook are at each other's throats and on the verge of a legal face-off over user privacy.

However, privacy is just the ostensible reason - the real one is money.

The result of the great tech war will dictate the future not just of these companies, but also of technology and how we use it because the world is dependent on their gadgets and apps.

Apple and Facebook are fighting each other to dictate how the user will use their services. It is not a new battle. It's been brewing beneath the surface for almost a decade now.

It is now that it has come to a head. The issue escalated on Thursday after Apple announced key changes to its software. It will upgrade its devices like the iPhone and the iPad.

The upgrades could arrive in spring and it will add new features that will tell users which app is gathering what data on you, in other words, the Apple upgrades will expose the apps that snoop on you.

On its website, Apple has illustrated how these new features will work. If an app is tracking your contact info, your location, your financial details, your purchases, your browsing history--- what you search you will get to know about it. Apple will tell you which app is tracking you and how. It will break down the information for you which should be good news for all users.

It's not good news for Facebook because now, users will know what Facebook is tracking and now, Facebook will need your permission before collecting your data which is bad enough for Facebook, however, what's worse is that Apple is making an example of it.

Apple is using Facebook in illustrations to show how the new features would look to describe how its devices can stop data theft. A user will get a prompt their screen telling them that Facebook or any other app wants to track the activity on other websites and apps. A user will get two options - allow the tracking, or deny it.

It means that Apple has declared a war on Facebook's data gathering. However, Apple is not doing to service users, in fact, it is only helping itself making a virtue out of a business plan.

Apple's CEO Tim Cook spoke about it. He, however, did not mention Facebook but criticised the business practices that Facebook has pioneered over the years.

"If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, then it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform. We should not look away from the bigger picture. At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement, the longer, the better, and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible," Tim Cook said.

Apple however is not doing public service, it is fighting a corporate battle and Facebook is fighting back whoever wins, will dictate terms to users. Last month, Facebook ran attack ads in three American newspapers. Facebook plastered its criticism of Apple on front pages and now, it wants to drag Apple to court.

Facebook is mulling a lawsuit. According to a report, Facebook has brought in outside legal counsel. The lawsuit could be about the app store. Facebook wants to sue Apple over what it calls "anti-competitive actions". It accuses Apple of giving preferential treatment to Apple's apps. It says Apple is restricting outside developers like Facebook but before the matter reaches court, Facebook has begun fighting Apple on the internet.

The social media giant has built a website which names Apple. There are testimonies from small business owners. They are voicing their concerns over the changes Apple is about to make to its software.

Mark Zuckerberg has entered the battlefield himself. He was recently on a conference call with Wall Street analysts. He went that's Apple's messaging app which is available only in the Apple ecosystem - only those who have iPhones and iPads can connect on i-message not Android users.

On Wednesday, Zuckerberg said in a conference call with Wall Street analysts that he viewed Apple as one of Facebook’s “biggest competitors.” He cited i-message, Apple’s iPhone-specific texting service, as an existential threat to Facebook’s social networking services.

He added that Apple had “every incentive to use their dominant platform position” to interfere with Facebook and other apps. Apple regularly treats its own apps more favourably in the app store, he said.

He may have a point, unfortunately, he doesn't have the sympathies of users and lawmakers because of his policies.

Facebook and Apple are two of America's most valuable companies - one is a social network, the other makes consumer electronics.&nbsp;They are not direct competitors but clearly, they are now sworn enemies.

The two of the biggest tech companies in the world Apple and Facebook are at each other's throats and on the verge of a legal face-off over user privacy. However, privacy is just the ostensible reason - the real one is money.

The two of the biggest tech companies in the world Apple and Facebook are at each other's throats and on the verge of a legal face-off over user privacy. However, privacy is just the ostensible reason - the real one is money. The result of the great tech war will dictate the future not just of these companies, but also of technology and how we use it because the world is dependent on their gadgets and apps. Apple and Facebook are fighting each other to dictate how the user will use their services. It is not a new battle. It's been brewing beneath the surface for almost a decade now. It is now that it has come to a head. The issue escalated on Thursday after Apple announced key changes to its software. It will upgrade its devices like the iPhone and the iPad. The upgrades could arrive in spring and it will add new features that will tell users which app is gathering what data on you, in other words, the Apple upgrades will expose the apps that snoop on you. On its website, Apple has illustrated how these new features will work. If an app is tracking your contact info, your location, your financial details, your purchases, your browsing history--- what you search you will get to know about it. Apple will tell you which app is tracking you and how. It will break down the information for you which should be good news for all users. It's not good news for Facebook because now, users will know what Facebook is tracking and now, Facebook will need your permission before collecting your data which is bad enough for Facebook, however, what's worse is that Apple is making an example of it. Apple is using Facebook in illustrations to show how the new features would look to describe how its devices can stop data theft. A user will get a prompt their screen telling them that Facebook or any other app wants to track the activity on other websites and apps. A user will get two options - allow the tracking, or deny it. It means that Apple has declared a war on Facebook's data gathering. However, Apple is not doing to service users, in fact, it is only helping itself making a virtue out of a business plan. Apple's CEO Tim Cook spoke about it. He, however, did not mention Facebook but criticised the business practices that Facebook has pioneered over the years. "If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, then it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform. We should not look away from the bigger picture. At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement, the longer, the better, and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible," Tim Cook said. Apple however is not doing public service, it is fighting a corporate battle and Facebook is fighting back whoever wins, will dictate terms to users. Last month, Facebook ran attack ads in three American newspapers. Facebook plastered its criticism of Apple on front pages and now, it wants to drag Apple to court. Facebook is mulling a lawsuit. According to a report, Facebook has brought in outside legal counsel. The lawsuit could be about the app store. Facebook wants to sue Apple over what it calls "anti-competitive actions". It accuses Apple of giving preferential treatment to Apple's apps. It says Apple is restricting outside developers like Facebook but before the matter reaches court, Facebook has begun fighting Apple on the internet. The social media giant has built a website which names Apple. There are testimonies from small business owners. They are voicing their concerns over the changes Apple is about to make to its software. Mark Zuckerberg has entered the battlefield himself. He was recently on a conference call with Wall Street analysts. He went that's Apple's messaging app which is available only in the Apple ecosystem - only those who have iPhones and iPads can connect on i-message not Android users. On Wednesday, Zuckerberg said in a conference call with Wall Street analysts that he viewed Apple as one of Facebook’s “biggest competitors.” He cited i-message, Apple’s iPhone-specific texting service, as an existential threat to Facebook’s social networking services. He added that Apple had “every incentive to use their dominant platform position” to interfere with Facebook and other apps. Apple regularly treats its own apps more favourably in the app store, he said. He may have a point, unfortunately, he doesn't have the sympathies of users and lawmakers because of his policies. Facebook and Apple are two of America's most valuable companies - one is a social network, the other makes consumer electronics. They are not direct competitors but clearly, they are now sworn enemies.

Apple, Facebook in face-off over user privacy

A couple in Switzerland has named their daughter Twifia, after the popular internet provider&nbsp;Twifi, and they have been rewarded with free Wi-Fi for the next 18 years.

Twifi is an internet service provider company in Switzerland which has started a campaign in which couples are being encouraged to name their kids using the brand's name. The campaign is also featured on their website that read,&nbsp;"Simply upload a photo of your child's civil birth certificate. After verification, Twifi will give you 18 years of free internet."&nbsp;(translated text)

<img alt="twifi" data-align="left" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="79c431d5-54a2-4c2b-8ac7-6f9d11c57cb4" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Twifi.jpg" />

The offer was taken up by a couple, aged 30 and 35, who named their daughter Twifia.&nbsp;However, the couple claims that the name didn't sound odd to them. "The longer I thought about it, the more unique the name became for me, and that was when the thing got its charm," the&nbsp;husband&nbsp;said.

The wife,&nbsp;however,&nbsp;said it took her more time, in comparison to her partner, to agree to adding the name 'Twifia'&nbsp;to her daughter's full name. However, she also added that for them the name has a superior meaning too. "For me, the name Twifia also stands for connection in this context. For an eternal bond.

"There are much worse names. And the more often we say 'Twifia', the heartier the name sounds."

Sadly, the couple has decided to stay anonymous as they feel the pressure of being judged for naming their child after a service provider.&nbsp;"We want to remain anonymous to those around us because we don't want to justify ourselves.&nbsp;

"Because the accusation of having sold our child's name hits us very hard. We are also a little ashamed."

The company's owner,&nbsp;Philippe Fotsch, meanwhile has asured people that he will personally pay for their Wi-Fi under this campaign even if his company goes broke or shuts down.

A couple in Switzerland has named their daughter Twifia, after the popular internet provider Twifi, and they have been rewarded with free Wi-Fi for the next 18 years.

A couple in Switzerland has named their daughter Twifia, after the popular internet provider Twifi, and they have been rewarded with free Wi-Fi for the next 18 years. Twifi is an internet service provider company in Switzerland which has started a campaign in which couples are being encouraged to name their kids using the brand's name. The campaign is also featured on their website that read, "Simply upload a photo of your child's civil birth certificate. After verification, Twifi will give you 18 years of free internet." (translated text) The offer was taken up by a couple, aged 30 and 35, who named their daughter Twifia. However, the couple claims that the name didn't sound odd to them. "The longer I thought about it, the more unique the name became for me, and that was when the thing got its charm," the husband said. The wife, however, said it took her more time, in comparison to her partner, to agree to adding the name 'Twifia' to her daughter's full name. However, she also added that for them the name has a superior meaning too. "For me, the name Twifia also stands for connection in this context. For an eternal bond. "There are much worse names. And the more often we say 'Twifia', the heartier the name sounds." Sadly, the couple has decided to stay anonymous as they feel the pressure of being judged for naming their child after a service provider. "We want to remain anonymous to those around us because we don't want to justify ourselves. "Because the accusation of having sold our child's name hits us very hard. We are also a little ashamed." The company's owner, Philippe Fotsch, meanwhile has asured people that he will personally pay for their Wi-Fi under this campaign even if his company goes broke or shuts down.

Baby girl named after internet provider gets 18-years of free WiFi

Google agreed Wednesday to pay $170 million to settle charges that it illegally collected and shared data from children on its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-to-pay-out-150-200-mn-over-youtube-privacy-claims-reports-246791">YouTube video service</a>, a deal critics said was too soft on the internet giant.

The settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and the New York state Attorney General is the largest amount in a case involving the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a 1998 federal law, officials said.

Officials said YouTube violated the law that requires <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-reveals-years-long-indiscriminate-iphone-hack-246581">child-directed websites</a> and online services to provide notice of their information practices and obtain parental consent prior to collecting personal information from children under 13.

The company marketed itself as a destination for children and benefitted by selling advertising to toymakers and others seeking to connect with young audiences, according to the FTC.

"YouTube touted its popularity with children to prospective corporate clients," said FTC chairman Joe Simons.

"Yet when it came to complying with COPPA, the company refused to acknowledge that portions of its platform were clearly directed to kids. There's no excuse for YouTube's violations of the law."

The settlement also calls for YouTube to change the way it handles children's content.

"We will treat data from anyone watching children's content on YouTube as coming from a child, regardless of the age of the user," YouTube chief Susan Wojcicki said in a statement.

"This means that we will limit data collection and use on videos made for kids only to what is needed to support the operation of the service. We will also stop serving personalised ads on this content entirely, and some features will no longer be available on this type of content, like comments and notifications."

Wojcicki added that Google would create a $100 million fund "dedicated to the creation of thoughtful, original children's content on YouTube and YouTube Kids globally."

The settlement, which must be approved by a federal court, calls for the FTC to receive $136 million and New York state the remaining $34 million.

The deal was approved by a 3-2 vote of the FTC commissioners, with the two Democrats calling for tougher penalties.

The deal "repeats many of the same mistakes from the flawed Facebook settlement: no individual accountability, insufficient remedies to address the company's financial incentives, and a fine that still allows the company to profit from its lawbreaking," Democratic commissioner Rohit Chopra said in a dissent.

"The terms of the settlement were not even significant enough to make Google issue a warning to its investors."

Activists who filed a complaint last year against YouTube also said the deal falls short.

"We are gratified that the FTC has finally forced Google to confront its longstanding lie that it wasn't targeting children on YouTube," said Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, one of the groups in the complaint.

The "paltry financial penalty of $170 million" is a mere slap and "sends a signal that if you are a politically powerful corporation, you do not have to fear any serious financial consequences when you break the law," Chester said.

"Google made billions off the backs of children, developing a host of intrusive and manipulative marketing practices that take advantage of their developmental vulnerabilities. More fundamental changes will be required to ensure that YouTube is a safe and fair platform for young people."

Simons said the deal goes beyond the legal requirements of the law by creating a system through which content creators must self-designate if their products are child-directed.

"This obligation exceeds what any third party in the marketplace currently is required to do," FTC chairman Simons said in a statement with commissioner Christine Wilson.

Simons and Wilson said that it would be difficult to get a harsher penalty imposed in court which would require proving that Google knew about its violations.

Google agreed Wednesday to pay $170 million to settle charges that it illegally collected and shared data from children on its YouTube video service, a deal critics said was too soft on the internet giant.

Google agreed Wednesday to pay $170 million to settle charges that it illegally collected and shared data from children on its YouTube video service, a deal critics said was too soft on the internet giant. The settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and the New York state Attorney General is the largest amount in a case involving the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a 1998 federal law, officials said. Officials said YouTube violated the law that requires child-directed websites and online services to provide notice of their information practices and obtain parental consent prior to collecting personal information from children under 13. The company marketed itself as a destination for children and benefitted by selling advertising to toymakers and others seeking to connect with young audiences, according to the FTC. "YouTube touted its popularity with children to prospective corporate clients," said FTC chairman Joe Simons. "Yet when it came to complying with COPPA, the company refused to acknowledge that portions of its platform were clearly directed to kids. There's no excuse for YouTube's violations of the law." The settlement also calls for YouTube to change the way it handles children's content. "We will treat data from anyone watching children's content on YouTube as coming from a child, regardless of the age of the user," YouTube chief Susan Wojcicki said in a statement. "This means that we will limit data collection and use on videos made for kids only to what is needed to support the operation of the service. We will also stop serving personalised ads on this content entirely, and some features will no longer be available on this type of content, like comments and notifications." Wojcicki added that Google would create a $100 million fund "dedicated to the creation of thoughtful, original children's content on YouTube and YouTube Kids globally." The settlement, which must be approved by a federal court, calls for the FTC to receive $136 million and New York state the remaining $34 million. The deal was approved by a 3-2 vote of the FTC commissioners, with the two Democrats calling for tougher penalties. The deal "repeats many of the same mistakes from the flawed Facebook settlement: no individual accountability, insufficient remedies to address the company's financial incentives, and a fine that still allows the company to profit from its lawbreaking," Democratic commissioner Rohit Chopra said in a dissent. "The terms of the settlement were not even significant enough to make Google issue a warning to its investors." Activists who filed a complaint last year against YouTube also said the deal falls short. "We are gratified that the FTC has finally forced Google to confront its longstanding lie that it wasn't targeting children on YouTube," said Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, one of the groups in the complaint. The "paltry financial penalty of $170 million" is a mere slap and "sends a signal that if you are a politically powerful corporation, you do not have to fear any serious financial consequences when you break the law," Chester said. "Google made billions off the backs of children, developing a host of intrusive and manipulative marketing practices that take advantage of their developmental vulnerabilities. More fundamental changes will be required to ensure that YouTube is a safe and fair platform for young people." Simons said the deal goes beyond the legal requirements of the law by creating a system through which content creators must self-designate if their products are child-directed. "This obligation exceeds what any third party in the marketplace currently is required to do," FTC chairman Simons said in a statement with commissioner Christine Wilson. Simons and Wilson said that it would be difficult to get a harsher penalty imposed in court which would require proving that Google knew about its violations.

Google to pay FTC $170 million for illegally collecting, sharing data from kids on YouTube

The US&nbsp;House voted on Tuesday 215-205 to repeal regulations requiring internet service providers to do more to protect customers&#39; privacy than websites like Alphabet Inc&#39;s Googleor &nbsp;Facebook Inc.

The White House said earlier Tuesday that President Donald Trump strongly supports the repeal of the rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission in October under then-President Barack Obama.

Under the rules, internet providers would need to obtain consumer consent before using precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children&#39;s information and web browsing history for advertising and marketing.

Last week, the Senate voted 50-48 to reverse the rules in a win for AT&amp;T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc.

The White House in its statement said internet providers would need to obtain affirmative &quot;opt-in&quot; consent from consumers to use and share certain information, but noted that websites are not required to get the same consent. &quot;This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor,&quot; the White House said.

Websites are governed by a less restrictive set of privacy rules overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai in a statement praised the decision of Congress to overturn &quot;privacy regulations designed to benefit one group of favoured companies over another group of disfavoured companies.&quot; Last week, Pai said consumers would have privacy protections even without the Obama internet provider rules, but critics say they will weaken.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the measure, said companies &quot;should not be able to use and sell the sensitive data they collect from you without your permission&quot;.

An Internet &amp; Television Association statement called the repeal &quot;an important step toward restoring consumer privacy protections that apply consistently&quot;.

One critic of the repeal, Craig Aaron, president of Free Press advocacy group, said major Silicon Valley companies shied away from the fight over the rules because they profit from consumer data.

&quot;There are a lot of companies that are very concerned about drawing attention to themselves and being regulated on privacy issues, and are sitting this out in a way that they haven&rsquo;t sat out previous privacy issues,&quot; Aaron said.

Representative Michael Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Tuesday that Comcast could know his personal information because he looked up his mother&#39;s medical condition and his purchase history. &quot;Just last week I bought underwear on the internet. Why should you know what size I take? Or the colour?&quot; Capuano asked. &quot;They are going to sell it to the underwear companies.&quot;

Comcast declined to comment.

Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican, said the rules &quot;unfairly skews the market in favour&quot; of websites that are free to collect data without consent.

Republican commissioners, including Pai, said in October that the rules would unfairly give websites like Facebook, Twitter Inc&nbsp;or Google the ability to harvest more data than internet service providers and thus further dominate digital advertising. The FCC earlier this month delayed the data rules from taking effect.

(Reuters)

Under the rules, internet providers would need to obtain consumer consent before using precise geo-location, financial and other information

The US House voted on Tuesday 215-205 to repeal regulations requiring internet service providers to do more to protect customers' privacy than websites like Alphabet Inc's Googleor Facebook Inc. The White House said earlier Tuesday that President Donald Trump strongly supports the repeal of the rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission in October under then-President Barack Obama. Under the rules, internet providers would need to obtain consumer consent before using precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children's information and web browsing history for advertising and marketing. Last week, the Senate voted 50-48 to reverse the rules in a win for AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc. The White House in its statement said internet providers would need to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from consumers to use and share certain information, but noted that websites are not required to get the same consent. "This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor," the White House said. Websites are governed by a less restrictive set of privacy rules overseen by the Federal Trade Commission. FCC chairman Ajit Pai in a statement praised the decision of Congress to overturn "privacy regulations designed to benefit one group of favoured companies over another group of disfavoured companies." Last week, Pai said consumers would have privacy protections even without the Obama internet provider rules, but critics say they will weaken. The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the measure, said companies "should not be able to use and sell the sensitive data they collect from you without your permission". An Internet & Television Association statement called the repeal "an important step toward restoring consumer privacy protections that apply consistently". One critic of the repeal, Craig Aaron, president of Free Press advocacy group, said major Silicon Valley companies shied away from the fight over the rules because they profit from consumer data. "There are a lot of companies that are very concerned about drawing attention to themselves and being regulated on privacy issues, and are sitting this out in a way that they haven’t sat out previous privacy issues," Aaron said. Representative Michael Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Tuesday that Comcast could know his personal information because he looked up his mother's medical condition and his purchase history. "Just last week I bought underwear on the internet. Why should you know what size I take? Or the colour?" Capuano asked. "They are going to sell it to the underwear companies." Comcast declined to comment. Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican, said the rules "unfairly skews the market in favour" of websites that are free to collect data without consent. Republican commissioners, including Pai, said in October that the rules would unfairly give websites like Facebook, Twitter Inc or Google the ability to harvest more data than internet service providers and thus further dominate digital advertising. The FCC earlier this month delayed the data rules from taking effect. (Reuters)

US Congress votes to repeal Obama's internet privacy regulations

The European Union on Tuesday launched a controversial deal with the United States aimed at curbing government spying on the personal internet infomation of European citizens. 
 
The deal replaces one struck down by the EU&#39;s top court in October, a decision which left firms like Google and Facebook in legal limbo over whether they could transfer data to their US headquarters. The court struck down that deal based on an Austrian activist&#39;s case against Facebook in Ireland, and its judgment cited US snooping practices exposed by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden. 
 
&quot;The EU-US Privacy Shield is a robust new system to protect the personal data of Europeans and ensure legal certainty for businesses,&quot; said EU justice commissioner Vera Jourova, launching the deal with US commerce secretary Penny Pritzker in Brussels. 
 
The deal will take effect within hours once EU member states are formally notified, officials said.&quot;The approval of the privacy deal is a milestone for privacy at a time when the sharing of data is driving growth in every sector,&quot; Pritzker told a press conference with Jourova. 
 
The deal will &quot;facilitate more trade across our borders, more collaboration across the Atlantic and more job creating investments in our communities&quot;, Pritzker said. 
 
Jourova insisted the deal offers the &quot;highest standards&quot; to protect personal data of EU citizens. 
 
But critics say it amounts to &quot;a little upgrade&quot; over the previous arrangement, called Safe Harbour. 
 
Austrian internet activist Max Schrems, who brought the original case against Facebook, said the new deal was likely to face fresh legal challenges. &quot;This deal is bad for users,&quot; Schrems said in a statement on Tuesday, adding that it was the result of pressure from Washington. 
 
The old agreement effectively meant that Europe treated the United States as a safe destination for internet data on the basis that Brussels and Washington adhered to similar standards. 
 
Safe Harbour was declared &quot;invalid&quot; by the European Court of Justice, citing National Security Agency documents leaked by Snowden in 2013. 
 
Top US companies including Facebook, Google and Microsoft in particular have been eager to end the legal void, because they transfer data from their European subsidiaries to their headquarters in the United States. 
 
The deal includes commitments by the US to limit the use of bulk-collected intelligence, the appointment of a US ombudsman to deal with complaints by European citizens, and fines for firms that do not comply. 
 
The deal will also be subject to an annual review. 
 
But activists and European lawmakers are highly critical. They call the deal still highly deficient in terms of protection from US government access to data, as well as safeguards from bulk data collection. 
 
The European Parliament in May asked the EU to continue negotiating with the United States for a better deal. 
 
It said the proposed US ombudsman to deal with complaints by European citizens would neither be &quot;sufficiently independent&quot; nor have enough powers to act. 
 
But Markus Beyrer, director general of Brussels-based BusinessEurope, said the deal &quot;will enhance legal certainty for thousands of businesses on both sides of the Atlantic while providing an adequate level of protection for citizens&#39; data&quot;. 
 
The members of Industry group DIGITALEUROPE are &quot;ready to begin the re-certification process&quot; through the US department of Commerce when it begins on August 1, communications director Paul Meller said. 
 
(AFP)

Critics say it amounts to 'a little upgrade' from the previous one, likely to face fresh legal challenges

The European Union on Tuesday launched a controversial deal with the United States aimed at curbing government spying on the personal internet infomation of European citizens. The deal replaces one struck down by the EU's top court in October, a decision which left firms like Google and Facebook in legal limbo over whether they could transfer data to their US headquarters. The court struck down that deal based on an Austrian activist's case against Facebook in Ireland, and its judgment cited US snooping practices exposed by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden. "The EU-US Privacy Shield is a robust new system to protect the personal data of Europeans and ensure legal certainty for businesses," said EU justice commissioner Vera Jourova, launching the deal with US commerce secretary Penny Pritzker in Brussels. The deal will take effect within hours once EU member states are formally notified, officials said."The approval of the privacy deal is a milestone for privacy at a time when the sharing of data is driving growth in every sector," Pritzker told a press conference with Jourova. The deal will "facilitate more trade across our borders, more collaboration across the Atlantic and more job creating investments in our communities", Pritzker said. Jourova insisted the deal offers the "highest standards" to protect personal data of EU citizens. But critics say it amounts to "a little upgrade" over the previous arrangement, called Safe Harbour. Austrian internet activist Max Schrems, who brought the original case against Facebook, said the new deal was likely to face fresh legal challenges. "This deal is bad for users," Schrems said in a statement on Tuesday, adding that it was the result of pressure from Washington. The old agreement effectively meant that Europe treated the United States as a safe destination for internet data on the basis that Brussels and Washington adhered to similar standards. Safe Harbour was declared "invalid" by the European Court of Justice, citing National Security Agency documents leaked by Snowden in 2013. Top US companies including Facebook, Google and Microsoft in particular have been eager to end the legal void, because they transfer data from their European subsidiaries to their headquarters in the United States. The deal includes commitments by the US to limit the use of bulk-collected intelligence, the appointment of a US ombudsman to deal with complaints by European citizens, and fines for firms that do not comply. The deal will also be subject to an annual review. But activists and European lawmakers are highly critical. They call the deal still highly deficient in terms of protection from US government access to data, as well as safeguards from bulk data collection. The European Parliament in May asked the EU to continue negotiating with the United States for a better deal. It said the proposed US ombudsman to deal with complaints by European citizens would neither be "sufficiently independent" nor have enough powers to act. But Markus Beyrer, director general of Brussels-based BusinessEurope, said the deal "will enhance legal certainty for thousands of businesses on both sides of the Atlantic while providing an adequate level of protection for citizens' data". The members of Industry group DIGITALEUROPE are "ready to begin the re-certification process" through the US department of Commerce when it begins on August 1, communications director Paul Meller said. (AFP)

EU signs controversial internet privacy deal with US

internet-privacy

Internet Privacy, News on Internet Privacy, stories on Internet Privacy, articles on Internet Privacy, Internet Privacy stories at Wion, Internet Privacy news, Internet Privacy latest news