The leaked documents suggest that there could be no limitations on the export of data, potentially applying even in sensitive areas such as health data. (Photo: Yuri Samoilov/Flickr, CC 2.0)
Dec 01, 2019
eaked documents from trade talks between the UK and US make it clear that our online interactions and digital products will be priorities for the negotiations. The UK grandly declares, "We do not want to just go back to existing [digital] trade texts, no matter how ambitious--we want to go beyond."
Digital rights rose up the public agenda when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had harvested 50 million Facebook profiles and used them to influence US voters. What happens to our online profiles, browsing history and data collected by the NHS are hot topics.
What is worrying about these trade discussions is that they appear to be trying to close down our options for regulation.
The leaked documents suggest that there could be no limitations on the export of data, potentially applying even in sensitive areas such as health data. The US "welcomed that data flows were a UK priority' but they raised issues about the UK's strict data protection policy, stating that they 'had some specific concerns with how GDPR [the EU's General Data Protection Law, which came into force last year] is being implemented". Any planned to changes to how our current data regulations operate has implications for privacy but also for the affordability of a high-quality NHS, as the service could be obliged to buy back medical technologies and expertise from overseas at high cost, even where these were created using freely exported NHS data.
The winners from these new digital trade rules will be platform companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, whose huge global reach allows them to dominate local markets and drive out competitors.
The US demands that no tax should be paid on cross-border online transactions. They also explicitly resist obligations to reveal the source code and algorithms within products such as cars, MRI scanners or the software increasingly being used in recruitment, healthcare and benefits decisions, stating, "On measures preventing the forced transfer of source code, we should look to include consideration of algorithms and trade secrets." This has already shown to be seriously problematic in a case where Volkswagen was heavily fined for using software to circumvent emissions testing, showing a result that was lower than occurs in normal driving.
Our ability to keep children safe online could also be at risk. The UK has recently implemented vital protections such as age-verification for pornography websites, but the US has nothing equivalent in place. In the leaked documents, the US says that, "Safety and consumer rights was an area where there was a lot to discuss due to the differences between systems." Shockingly, the UK seemed willing to be flexible about regulations in this area, replying, "In terms of specific measures under this banner, we are approaching this openly."
The US trade deal is the wrong place to try and address these complex digital economy issues. Trade deals simply have no mandate to consider wider issues like child safety, workers rights or environmental protection, and experience shows that they are not good vehicles for pursuing these goals. The principal motivation for all the rules in a trade deal has to be (according to WTO rules) the removal of barriers to trade. The only consideration given to wider social issues in trade deals is in unenforceable sections such as the preamble or a sustainable development chapter, and even these sections consider social issues mainly in terms of their impact on trade.
The winners from these new digital trade rules will be platform companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, whose huge global reach allows them to dominate local markets and drive out competitors. Digital platforms have created real social benefits in many areas, but they have also generated new problems including tax avoidance, poor quality jobs, and misuse of our private data. Digital platforms have taken advantage of the relative lawlessness of the digital world to become the world's biggest companies, and they are keen to ensure their advantages are preserved.
Four major platforms--Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon--have doubled their lobbying spend in the last three years, now shelling out $55 million in the US on an army of lobbyists who aim to influence government policy. Some have also targeted the EU: Google's EU lobbying spend was over EUR8 million, up tenfold since 2011. This implies a serious determination to ensure that their agenda is prioritised in the many trade negotiations currently on the table.
There are many losers from this system. The intervention of powerful online companies in elections has serious implications for democracy. The NHS and other public services risk losing control of vital data, forcing them to buy it back at huge costs in the form of 'insights' from private companies.
Workers in the platform economy have fared especially badly, often being paid as little as $3.00 per hour. Uber has even been accused of treating drivers like "sweated labour." Stamping out these kinds of abuses is no simple task and will require the kind of regulation that these US trade talks are trying to prevent.
To create the kind of digital economy we want, we need to retain the ability to regulate so that it works for the benefit of all, not just a handful of powerful companies. A trade deal with the US is the wrong place to work out how we want to manage digital transactions, data and software, as it just cannot provide answers that work for society as a whole.
These early trade talks show that discussions are moving in an extremely worrying direction. It is vital that the UK change tack, before we sign up for a trade deal that could prevent future progress.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Laura Bannister
Laura Bannister is Senior Adviser on EU-UK Trade at the Trade Justice Movement. The Trade Justice Movement is a coalition of sixty civil society organizations calling for trade rules that work for people and planet.
Ruth Bergan
Ruth Bergan is the Co-ordinator of the Trade Justice Movement, a national network that campaigns for socially and environmentally sustainable global trade.
eaked documents from trade talks between the UK and US make it clear that our online interactions and digital products will be priorities for the negotiations. The UK grandly declares, "We do not want to just go back to existing [digital] trade texts, no matter how ambitious--we want to go beyond."
Digital rights rose up the public agenda when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had harvested 50 million Facebook profiles and used them to influence US voters. What happens to our online profiles, browsing history and data collected by the NHS are hot topics.
What is worrying about these trade discussions is that they appear to be trying to close down our options for regulation.
The leaked documents suggest that there could be no limitations on the export of data, potentially applying even in sensitive areas such as health data. The US "welcomed that data flows were a UK priority' but they raised issues about the UK's strict data protection policy, stating that they 'had some specific concerns with how GDPR [the EU's General Data Protection Law, which came into force last year] is being implemented". Any planned to changes to how our current data regulations operate has implications for privacy but also for the affordability of a high-quality NHS, as the service could be obliged to buy back medical technologies and expertise from overseas at high cost, even where these were created using freely exported NHS data.
The winners from these new digital trade rules will be platform companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, whose huge global reach allows them to dominate local markets and drive out competitors.
The US demands that no tax should be paid on cross-border online transactions. They also explicitly resist obligations to reveal the source code and algorithms within products such as cars, MRI scanners or the software increasingly being used in recruitment, healthcare and benefits decisions, stating, "On measures preventing the forced transfer of source code, we should look to include consideration of algorithms and trade secrets." This has already shown to be seriously problematic in a case where Volkswagen was heavily fined for using software to circumvent emissions testing, showing a result that was lower than occurs in normal driving.
Our ability to keep children safe online could also be at risk. The UK has recently implemented vital protections such as age-verification for pornography websites, but the US has nothing equivalent in place. In the leaked documents, the US says that, "Safety and consumer rights was an area where there was a lot to discuss due to the differences between systems." Shockingly, the UK seemed willing to be flexible about regulations in this area, replying, "In terms of specific measures under this banner, we are approaching this openly."
The US trade deal is the wrong place to try and address these complex digital economy issues. Trade deals simply have no mandate to consider wider issues like child safety, workers rights or environmental protection, and experience shows that they are not good vehicles for pursuing these goals. The principal motivation for all the rules in a trade deal has to be (according to WTO rules) the removal of barriers to trade. The only consideration given to wider social issues in trade deals is in unenforceable sections such as the preamble or a sustainable development chapter, and even these sections consider social issues mainly in terms of their impact on trade.
The winners from these new digital trade rules will be platform companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, whose huge global reach allows them to dominate local markets and drive out competitors. Digital platforms have created real social benefits in many areas, but they have also generated new problems including tax avoidance, poor quality jobs, and misuse of our private data. Digital platforms have taken advantage of the relative lawlessness of the digital world to become the world's biggest companies, and they are keen to ensure their advantages are preserved.
Four major platforms--Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon--have doubled their lobbying spend in the last three years, now shelling out $55 million in the US on an army of lobbyists who aim to influence government policy. Some have also targeted the EU: Google's EU lobbying spend was over EUR8 million, up tenfold since 2011. This implies a serious determination to ensure that their agenda is prioritised in the many trade negotiations currently on the table.
There are many losers from this system. The intervention of powerful online companies in elections has serious implications for democracy. The NHS and other public services risk losing control of vital data, forcing them to buy it back at huge costs in the form of 'insights' from private companies.
Workers in the platform economy have fared especially badly, often being paid as little as $3.00 per hour. Uber has even been accused of treating drivers like "sweated labour." Stamping out these kinds of abuses is no simple task and will require the kind of regulation that these US trade talks are trying to prevent.
To create the kind of digital economy we want, we need to retain the ability to regulate so that it works for the benefit of all, not just a handful of powerful companies. A trade deal with the US is the wrong place to work out how we want to manage digital transactions, data and software, as it just cannot provide answers that work for society as a whole.
These early trade talks show that discussions are moving in an extremely worrying direction. It is vital that the UK change tack, before we sign up for a trade deal that could prevent future progress.
Laura Bannister
Laura Bannister is Senior Adviser on EU-UK Trade at the Trade Justice Movement. The Trade Justice Movement is a coalition of sixty civil society organizations calling for trade rules that work for people and planet.
Ruth Bergan
Ruth Bergan is the Co-ordinator of the Trade Justice Movement, a national network that campaigns for socially and environmentally sustainable global trade.
eaked documents from trade talks between the UK and US make it clear that our online interactions and digital products will be priorities for the negotiations. The UK grandly declares, "We do not want to just go back to existing [digital] trade texts, no matter how ambitious--we want to go beyond."
Digital rights rose up the public agenda when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had harvested 50 million Facebook profiles and used them to influence US voters. What happens to our online profiles, browsing history and data collected by the NHS are hot topics.
What is worrying about these trade discussions is that they appear to be trying to close down our options for regulation.
The leaked documents suggest that there could be no limitations on the export of data, potentially applying even in sensitive areas such as health data. The US "welcomed that data flows were a UK priority' but they raised issues about the UK's strict data protection policy, stating that they 'had some specific concerns with how GDPR [the EU's General Data Protection Law, which came into force last year] is being implemented". Any planned to changes to how our current data regulations operate has implications for privacy but also for the affordability of a high-quality NHS, as the service could be obliged to buy back medical technologies and expertise from overseas at high cost, even where these were created using freely exported NHS data.
The winners from these new digital trade rules will be platform companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, whose huge global reach allows them to dominate local markets and drive out competitors.
The US demands that no tax should be paid on cross-border online transactions. They also explicitly resist obligations to reveal the source code and algorithms within products such as cars, MRI scanners or the software increasingly being used in recruitment, healthcare and benefits decisions, stating, "On measures preventing the forced transfer of source code, we should look to include consideration of algorithms and trade secrets." This has already shown to be seriously problematic in a case where Volkswagen was heavily fined for using software to circumvent emissions testing, showing a result that was lower than occurs in normal driving.
Our ability to keep children safe online could also be at risk. The UK has recently implemented vital protections such as age-verification for pornography websites, but the US has nothing equivalent in place. In the leaked documents, the US says that, "Safety and consumer rights was an area where there was a lot to discuss due to the differences between systems." Shockingly, the UK seemed willing to be flexible about regulations in this area, replying, "In terms of specific measures under this banner, we are approaching this openly."
The US trade deal is the wrong place to try and address these complex digital economy issues. Trade deals simply have no mandate to consider wider issues like child safety, workers rights or environmental protection, and experience shows that they are not good vehicles for pursuing these goals. The principal motivation for all the rules in a trade deal has to be (according to WTO rules) the removal of barriers to trade. The only consideration given to wider social issues in trade deals is in unenforceable sections such as the preamble or a sustainable development chapter, and even these sections consider social issues mainly in terms of their impact on trade.
The winners from these new digital trade rules will be platform companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, whose huge global reach allows them to dominate local markets and drive out competitors. Digital platforms have created real social benefits in many areas, but they have also generated new problems including tax avoidance, poor quality jobs, and misuse of our private data. Digital platforms have taken advantage of the relative lawlessness of the digital world to become the world's biggest companies, and they are keen to ensure their advantages are preserved.
Four major platforms--Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon--have doubled their lobbying spend in the last three years, now shelling out $55 million in the US on an army of lobbyists who aim to influence government policy. Some have also targeted the EU: Google's EU lobbying spend was over EUR8 million, up tenfold since 2011. This implies a serious determination to ensure that their agenda is prioritised in the many trade negotiations currently on the table.
There are many losers from this system. The intervention of powerful online companies in elections has serious implications for democracy. The NHS and other public services risk losing control of vital data, forcing them to buy it back at huge costs in the form of 'insights' from private companies.
Workers in the platform economy have fared especially badly, often being paid as little as $3.00 per hour. Uber has even been accused of treating drivers like "sweated labour." Stamping out these kinds of abuses is no simple task and will require the kind of regulation that these US trade talks are trying to prevent.
To create the kind of digital economy we want, we need to retain the ability to regulate so that it works for the benefit of all, not just a handful of powerful companies. A trade deal with the US is the wrong place to work out how we want to manage digital transactions, data and software, as it just cannot provide answers that work for society as a whole.
These early trade talks show that discussions are moving in an extremely worrying direction. It is vital that the UK change tack, before we sign up for a trade deal that could prevent future progress.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.