The European Fee in the present day finalized its approval of the EU-US Knowledge Privateness Framework, within the newest step in a prolonged effort to harmonize the 2 units of legal guidelines and permit for cross-border knowledge switch, however critics say that it’s more likely to face the identical authorized challenges which have brought on earlier agreements to founder.
The Fee’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, stated that the ratification of the framework ought to present “authorized certainty” to transatlantic companies, and known as the commitments “unprecedented.”
“Right this moment we take an necessary step to supply belief to residents that their knowledge is secure, to deepen our financial ties between the EU and the US, and on the similar time to reaffirm our shared values,” she stated, in a press release. “It reveals that by working collectively, we will handle essentially the most advanced points.”
Chief amongst criticisms of earlier US-EU data-transfer agreements is the function of the US intelligence group in mass surveillance, and one distinguished critic stated that the newest model doesn’t materially restrict American spy companies’ entry to EU residents’ knowledge.
Knowledge privateness accord will face new authorized challenges
“[The t]hird try of the European Fee to get a secure settlement on EU-US knowledge transfers will seemingly be again on the [European] Courtroom of Justice in a matter of months,” stated a press release from the European Middle for Digital Rights. That group, which additionally refers to itself as “NOYB” (or “none of what you are promoting”), was based in 2017 by Max Schrems, an Austrian lawyer who has been outspoken in his criticisms of US knowledge safety guidelines and mass surveillance, and whose complaints had been key to sinking the earlier Secure Harbor and Privateness Defend packages.
Earlier makes an attempt to succeed in a data-sharing accord with the US collapsed on account of courtroom circumstances within the ECJ, with an absence of really impartial oversight and opposition from the US Division of Justice to ending bulk surveillance.
