One has several layers of checks and balances in there from unrelated sections of government as a part of a legitimate function of any government in the world.
The original post however implied that it was a sinister thing that could just be done on a whim which is objectively not at all how it works in reality.
American checks and balances aren't relevant to the EU. The CLOUD Act requires that American companies turn over data stored in the EU without any involvement of EU due process and checks and balances, violating EU laws. The CLOUD Act effectively drafts all American companies into the American intelligence community. This is not acceptable to the EU.
punnerud is not confused.
Edit for response:
> Which European countries aren’t able to compel a company to help them by providing data in a matter of national security?
EU companies being so compelled by EU governments isn't relevant to the EU; which obviously supports that.
> This idea that all American companies are somehow arm in arm with the USIC is a ridiculous notion that isn’t supported by facts.
That is the purpose of the CLOUD Act. That's what it does. If Microsoft has a server in the EU with EU citizen data on it, the CLOUD Act requires Microsoft to hand over that data in violation of EU law if the US Government requests it. The fact that the US Government has checks and balances of its own is not relevant, the CLOUD Act still compels American companies operating in the EU to violate EU laws.
> There is a reason why most American tech companies in particular make a point to repeatedly and very loudly proclaim [...]
Their proclamations are irrelevant. US law requires them to violate EU law. As long as this is the case, the EU has no rational choice but to ban EU companies from giving EU data to American companies.
Which European countries aren’t able to compel a company to help them by providing data in a matter of national security?
This idea that all American companies are somehow arm in arm with the USIC is a ridiculous notion that isn’t supported by facts.
There is a reason why most American tech companies in particular make a point to repeatedly and very loudly proclaim that they will not provide any assistance unless legally forced to do so with a subpoena. They understand that they have a global customer base and that outside the context of those checks and balances that it might be bad for business.
In fact I would even argue that many of those same companies have a far stronger record of collaborating with China than the US. Apple is an example which repeatedly comes to mind here.
European countries can compel me to share data, and in that case I can do it legally. However, under the current law if I share data to the US government without going through the process in my local courts, I am liable for massive fines.
This is even true if I am not the entity sharing the data, but I merely placed it in the care of an US company. The problem is not that American companies are arm in arm with the government, it's that they are incorporated in a jurisdiction where the US courts have power, and because of my local laws, I must consider those courts to be a hostile actor.
It's not having a trial or anything to get the data, it is a judge (or in the link, a court clerk?) signing off on the subpoena or am I confused as to how complicated and difficult and time consuming that actually is.
Because getting a warrant is in my experience not like something that takes months and months where people argue and there is a likelihood that even if the warrant is granted that you can appeal to have it overturned, and it seems like a subpoena is no more difficult than getting a warrant and maybe easier.
At any rate, aside from the fact that the American government has often been shown to take more data than needed in their searches of people - that is to say abuse the layers of checks and balances - the European government would of course worry about potential abuses and disallow on the better safe than sorry view of protecting its citizens.
on edit: slackdog made a more relevant point than I did anyway.
The original post however implied that it was a sinister thing that could just be done on a whim which is objectively not at all how it works in reality.