The current agreement relies on the US having an independent privacy regulator (The FTC). But now independent regulators are unconstitutional in the US.
The Fed is not eligible to regulate business, consumer, or data handling practices, so whether The Fed is independent or not is irrelevant to the EU/US data sharing agreement and would not have bearing on Noyb’s interpretation of the Supreme Court outcome. From the agreement’s perspective, full agency independence is required; if only one agency are independent and the rest are not, and that one agency lacks regulatory scope over the domains addressed by the DSA, then the DSA as written is void as no agency responsive to its mandatory independence requirement exists. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
> Fed is not eligible to regulate business, consumer, or data handling practices
It almost certainly is. You're correct that it's tangential to the data-sharing agreement. I'm just pointing out that we're in lalaland when it comes to agency independence. The Fed having a "distinct historical tradition" of independence does emerge in part from statute. But why its statute commands where the FTC's does not is, at least to me, unclear.
Again, it doesn’t matter if it is or not: whether ‘0.0%’ or ‘0.1%’ of agencies are independent, no interpretation of either outcome exists that complies with the DSA ‘100% of agencies are independent’ requirement. Any uncertainty over The Fed alone has no bearing whatsoever on the result.
The current agreement relies on the US having an independent privacy regulator (The FTC). But now independent regulators are unconstitutional in the US.
> But now independent regulators are unconstitutional in the US
Except for the Fed?
The Fed is not eligible to regulate business, consumer, or data handling practices, so whether The Fed is independent or not is irrelevant to the EU/US data sharing agreement and would not have bearing on Noyb’s interpretation of the Supreme Court outcome. From the agreement’s perspective, full agency independence is required; if only one agency are independent and the rest are not, and that one agency lacks regulatory scope over the domains addressed by the DSA, then the DSA as written is void as no agency responsive to its mandatory independence requirement exists. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
> Fed is not eligible to regulate business, consumer, or data handling practices
It almost certainly is. You're correct that it's tangential to the data-sharing agreement. I'm just pointing out that we're in lalaland when it comes to agency independence. The Fed having a "distinct historical tradition" of independence does emerge in part from statute. But why its statute commands where the FTC's does not is, at least to me, unclear.
Again, it doesn’t matter if it is or not: whether ‘0.0%’ or ‘0.1%’ of agencies are independent, no interpretation of either outcome exists that complies with the DSA ‘100% of agencies are independent’ requirement. Any uncertainty over The Fed alone has no bearing whatsoever on the result.
The exception that proves the intellectual bankruptcy of the majority.