2 ms·

No, and I rarely hear that as the main concern. For the record, we have heard very different concerns then. One big concern I have seen expressed, particularly

No, and I rarely hear that as the main concern. For the record, we have heard very different concerns then. One big concern I have seen expressed, particularly in the more recent context of the GDPR, is that the government surveillance powers constitute a legal obligation on businesses, but only EU versions of such powers are recognised as legal obligations on EU businesses. Thus EU businesses cannot avail themselves of that lawful basis for processing if they export data they control to a US business (even one covered by Safe Harbor before or Privacy Shield now) for processing and the US government then grabs the data. The logical conclusion if all such schemes are struck down is that exporting any personal data to the US for any reason will become illegal, with obvious catastrophic consequences if the law is then enforced to the letter. The main concern with Safe Harbor et al. (where US businesses are dealing with EU businesses and – more importantly – EU people) is commercial abuse of data (Facebook!) and data breaches. The entire point of Privacy Shield, like Safe Harbor before it, is to give EU businesses reassurance that they are not breaking data protection law by transferring personal data to a compliant US business. Businesses that are doing things with the data that would not be permitted under the stronger EU regulatory regime aren't supposed to qualify for Safe Harbor/Privacy Shield status in the first place.

Tomte 8y ago
> The entire point of Privacy Shield, like Safe Harbor before it Exactly, I didn't mean that Privacy Shield is the problem, but that it is trying to address that problem, but I can see that I expressed myself ambiguously. > The logical conclusion if all such schemes are struck down is that exporting any personal data to the US for any reason will become illegal But that's good! Not in the sense that we should wish for that outcome, but in the sense that the US should offer real assurances to us that allow us to enter such an agreement..
- Silhouette 8y ago
  But that's good! Not in the sense that we should wish for that outcome, but in the sense that the US should offer real assurances to us that allow us to enter such an agreement.. I understand the principle you're aiming for. However, as a practical matter, it is constitutionally impossible for the US to enter into the sort of binding agreements that would give you the assurances you seek, and there is no realistic prospect of literally amending the Constitution of the United States to make it more subservient to international interests so that it could give those assurances. Pursuing the strategy you advocate could only end in crippling large numbers of EU businesses, setting back the already lagging development of our tech and creative sectors by years more, and catastrophic effects on our economies. A good general tries to fight only battles he knows he will win, but it's a crazy general who tries to fight battles he knows he can't win.
pluma 8y ago
Just to be clear, Privacy Shield is a self-certification. The certification process consists of filling out a few fields with generic company data to generate a policy and then paying money. It doesn't prove a business implements privacy by design or takes any steps to ensure data protection. It just proves the business was willing to pay the registration fee and sign a bunch of legal documents that may or may not result in fines if proven to be violated.

Tomte 8y ago

> The entire point of Privacy Shield, like Safe Harbor before it Exactly, I didn't mean that Privacy Shield is the problem, but that it is trying to address that problem, but I can see that I expressed myself ambiguously. > The logical conclusion if all such schemes are struck down is that exporting any personal data to the US for any reason will become illegal But that's good! Not in the sense that we should wish for that outcome, but in the sense that the US should offer real assurances to us that allow us to enter such an agreement..

Silhouette 8y ago
But that's good! Not in the sense that we should wish for that outcome, but in the sense that the US should offer real assurances to us that allow us to enter such an agreement.. I understand the principle you're aiming for. However, as a practical matter, it is constitutionally impossible for the US to enter into the sort of binding agreements that would give you the assurances you seek, and there is no realistic prospect of literally amending the Constitution of the United States to make it more subservient to international interests so that it could give those assurances. Pursuing the strategy you advocate could only end in crippling large numbers of EU businesses, setting back the already lagging development of our tech and creative sectors by years more, and catastrophic effects on our economies. A good general tries to fight only battles he knows he will win, but it's a crazy general who tries to fight battles he knows he can't win.

pluma 8y ago

Just to be clear, Privacy Shield is a self-certification. The certification process consists of filling out a few fields with generic company data to generate a policy and then paying money. It doesn't prove a business implements privacy by design or takes any steps to ensure data protection. It just proves the business was willing to pay the registration fee and sign a bunch of legal documents that may or may not result in fines if proven to be violated.