jm + safe-harbor   9

German Privacy Regulators Fined Adobe, Others Over U.S. Data Transfers
Adobe was fined 8,000 euros, Punica 9,000 euros and Unilever 11,000 euros. The regulator said they had put in place alternative legal mechanisms for transferring data to the United States following the fine. “The fact that the companies have eventually implemented a legal basis for the transfer had to be taken into account in a favorable way for the calculation of the fines,” said Johannes Caspar, the Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection. “For future infringements, stricter measures have to be applied.”
data-protection  eu  fines  us  privacy  safe-harbor 
june 2016 by jm
Why is Safe Harbour II such a challenge? - EDRi
The only possible deal that is immediately available is where the European Commission agrees a politically expeditious but legally untenable deal, creating a time bomb rather than a durable deal, to the benefit of no one. In absence of reforms before an agreement, individuals’ fundamental rights would remain under threat.
edri  law  eu  ec  ecj  surveillance  snooping  us-politics  safe-harbor 
february 2016 by jm
Tech companies like Facebook not above the law, says Max Schrems
“Big companies didn’t only rely on safe harbour: they also rely on binding corporate rules and standard contractual clauses. But it’s interesting that the court decided the case on fundamental rights grounds: so it doesn’t matter remotely what ground you transfer on, if that process is still illegal under 7 and 8 of charter, it can’t be done.”


Also:
“Ireland has no interest in doing its job, and will continue not to, forever. Clearly it’s an investment issue – but overall the policy is: we don’t regulate companies here. The cost of challenging any of this in the courts is prohibitive. And the people don’t seem to care.”


:(
ireland  guardian  max-schrems  privacy  surveillance  safe-harbor  eu  us  nsa  dpc  data-protection 
october 2015 by jm
net.wars: Unsafe harbor
Wendy Grossman on where the Safe Harbor decision is leading.
One clause would require European companies to tell their relevant data protection authorities if they are being compelled to turn over data - even if they have been forbidden to disclose this under US law. Sounds nice, but doesn't mobilize the rock or soften the hard place, since companies will still have to pick a law to violate. I imagine the internal discussions there revolving around two questions: which violation is less likely to land the CEO in jail and which set of fines can we afford?


(via Simon McGarr)
safe-harbor  privacy  law  us  eu  surveillance  wendy-grossman  via:tupp_ed 
october 2015 by jm
The Surveillance Elephant in the Room…
Very perceptive post on the next steps for safe harbor, post-Schrems.
And behind that elephant there are other elephants: if US surveillance and surveillance law is a problem, then what about UK surveillance? Is GCHQ any less intrusive than the NSA? It does not seem so – and this puts even more pressure on the current reviews of UK surveillance law taking place. If, as many predict, the forthcoming Investigatory Powers Bill will be even more intrusive and extensive than current UK surveillance laws this will put the UK in a position that could rapidly become untenable. If the UK decides to leave the EU, will that mean that the UK is not considered a safe place for European data? Right now that seems the only logical conclusion – but the ramifications for UK businesses could be huge.

[....] What happens next, therefore, is hard to foresee. What cannot be done, however, is to ignore the elephant in the room. The issue of surveillance has to be taken on. The conflict between that surveillance and fundamental human rights is not a merely semantic one, or one for lawyers and academics, it’s a real one. In the words of historian and philosopher Quentin Skinner “the current situation seems to me untenable in a democratic society.” The conflict over Safe Harbor is in many ways just a symptom of that far bigger problem. The biggest elephant of all.
ec  cjeu  surveillance  safe-harbor  schrems  privacy  europe  us  uk  gchq  nsa 
october 2015 by jm
5 takeaways from the death of safe harbor – POLITICO
Reacting to the ruling, the [EC] stressed that data transfers between the U.S. and Europe can continue on the basis of other legal mechanisms.

A lot rides on what steps the Commission and national data protection supervisors take in response. “It is crucial for legal certainty that the EC sends a clear signal,” said Nauwelaerts.

That could involve providing a timeline for concluding an agreement with U.S. authorities, together with a commitment from national data protection authorities not to block data transfers while negotiations are on-going, he explained.
safe-harbor  data  privacy  eu  ec  snowden  law  us 
october 2015 by jm
Daragh O'Brien on the CJEU judgement on Safe Harbor
Many organisations I've spoken to have had the cunning plan of adopting model contract clauses as their fall back position to replace their reliance on Safe Harbor. [....] The best that can be said for Model Clauses is that they haven't been struck down by the CJEU. Yet.
model-clauses  cjeu  eu  europe  safe-harbor  us  nsa  surveillance  privacy  law 
october 2015 by jm
EU court adviser: data-share deal with U.S. is invalid | Reuters
The Safe Harbor agreement does not do enough to protect EU citizen's private information when it reached the United States, Yves Bot, Advocate General at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), said. While his opinions are not binding, they tend to be followed by the court's judges, who are currently considering a complaint about the system in the wake of revelations from ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden of mass U.S. government surveillance.
safe-harbor  law  eu  ec  ecj  snowden  surveillance  privacy  us  data  max-schrems 
september 2015 by jm
Data sharing deal with U.S. referred to EU's top court | Reuters
High Court Justice Gerard Hogan said that given the Safe Harbour agreement, which says that U.S. has sufficient data safeguards in place, the Irish regulator did not have the authority to investigate. If Safe Harbour stands, the student group's application must fail, he said. "The critical issue which arises is whether the proper interpretation of the 1995 [EU data protection] directive and the 2000 Commission decision [on the Safe Harbour principles] should be re-evaluated in the light of the subsequent entry into force of article 8 of the EU charter," on the right to the protection of personal data, Hogan said.
eu  safe-harbor  privacy  high-court  ireland  law  data-protection 
june 2014 by jm

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: