l borders are irrelevant; more important, so is the very concept of geographic jurisdiction. The EU recognizes that in prohibitions of data transfers to third world countries that do not meet the Directives standards. Even leaving aside the disaster that an EU-U.S. confrontation over this issue would entail, it is clear that the EU simply cannot build a wall around its borders to implement its data protection laws. What about American or Asian visitors who want to use their credit cards in a French caf; would every check with an external credit data base be a violation of the law.Much more problematically, would every Web site, regardless of where in the world it is located that is accessed from Europe be subject to European law? At least one authority believes that to be the case. Does that mean every Web site is subject to the Everyones law? To no ones law? That every time a European logs on to any American web site that does not meet the standards of the EU Directive that the owner of that Web site is in violation?The protection of the privacy of personal information on the Web is not amenable to national or even regional solutions. The Web is a complex interconnected global network. At a minimum, some degree of harmonization of national efforts in the effect of the law is required. The dilemma we face is the need for global solutions in the face of a very real, and very deep-seated local differences in a political culture, values and history.Any meaningful solution to the problem of protection of personal privacy must square this circle. Absolutist positions on both sides are counterproductive: Americans cannot continue to argue that anything but a market based solution will drive us back into the technological dark ages and Europeans must move beyond caricatures of the American privacy environment as the wild west. Any effective solution requires understanding other world views and more important, acceptance of their validity.We be...
