Divided we fall: Data dispute highlights need for international laws

The spat between the US and the European Union over the exchange of personal data is instructive on two levels for anyone wishing to understand the best way to develop laws governing the internet.

On the one hand, it shows even in this global economy local difficulties can dictate the legislative timetable. The EU may be worried that US data protection laws don't go far enough for European consumers, but the US is already embroiled in a Presidential election race that still has four months to run. And until it's over, any talk of compensation for those who feel their rights to individual data security have been violated will have to wait.

But despite the difficulties, the safeharbour accord agreed in March does demonstrate how governing bodies can work on a global level.

Data protection on the internet cannot be handled in isolation. If you want to appeal to a worldwide market you must understand the sensibilities of those you are selling to or working with. That means laws or guidance that are applicable across geographic boundaries, if not worldwide then at least continent by continent.

The safeharbour accord attempted to bridge the divide between US and European legislation. The result was the gentleman's agreement that now needs reviewing.

Contrast this with the isolationist approach the UK government has taken to email interception and encryption laws. silicon.com has long campaigned against the detail of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill but on a wider level the argument is that such legislation, however good, should not be developed by a national government.

ISPs subjected to draconian national laws can always up and leave to a less regulated country, rendering the legislation irrelevant in all but the harm it does to the country where it was conceived.

The EU and the US may not meet eye to eye but internationally negotiated agreements - in stark contrast to legislation like the Snooping Bill - is the way forward.