3 ms·

Then you're not paying attention, as there is concrete precedence, in particular Schrems 2.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
Schrems 2 does not do what you claim: the EU-US Privacy Shield is about sending EU data to the US, not about US companies keeping data in the EU. So I still don't know what "precedent" there might be. Surely if your claim was factual, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc would have ceased business in the EU...
- closewith 1y ago
  You should read Schrems 2, specifically paragraphs 179 onwards, which set the now unchallenged precedent that data which remains in the EU but is subject to US legislation that allows access by US public authorities constitutes a transfer. > Surely if your claim was factual, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc would have ceased business in the EU... The legal cover is now the EU–US Data Privacy Framework, which allows these transfers subject to self certification. This is already under challenge and inevitably will fall judicial review in the next few years. Once all the delaying tactics have been dealt with, we'll be left with the inevitable conclusion. Data transfers to the US or US controlled companies are unlawful as long as the CLOUD Act and similar are in force. It's simply unreconcilable with the ECHR Right To Privacy and GDPR.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    > which set the now unchallenged precedent that data which remains in the EU but is subject to US legislation that allows access by US public authorities constitutes a transfer. Not at all. Again, this is only about privacy shield and actual transfers to the US. > It's simply unreconcilable with the ECHR Right To Privacy and GDPR. That's the FUD I was talking about considering that this is exactly the same situation as access by EU-based law enforcement. EU is playing politics and is tangling itself in unworkable legislation.
    - closewith 1y ago
      > Not at all. Again, this is only about privacy shield and actual transfers to the US. You are wrong on this. The CJEU ruled that making EU data “available” to an entity in a third country is a transfer, and the European Data Protection Board subsequently clarified that remote access from a third country triggers the GDPR transfer rules.

Schrems 2 does not do what you claim: the EU-US Privacy Shield is about sending EU data to the US, not about US companies keeping data in the EU. So I still don't know what "precedent" there might be. Surely if your claim was factual, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc would have ceased business in the EU...

closewith 1y ago
You should read Schrems 2, specifically paragraphs 179 onwards, which set the now unchallenged precedent that data which remains in the EU but is subject to US legislation that allows access by US public authorities constitutes a transfer. > Surely if your claim was factual, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc would have ceased business in the EU... The legal cover is now the EU–US Data Privacy Framework, which allows these transfers subject to self certification. This is already under challenge and inevitably will fall judicial review in the next few years. Once all the delaying tactics have been dealt with, we'll be left with the inevitable conclusion. Data transfers to the US or US controlled companies are unlawful as long as the CLOUD Act and similar are in force. It's simply unreconcilable with the ECHR Right To Privacy and GDPR.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  > which set the now unchallenged precedent that data which remains in the EU but is subject to US legislation that allows access by US public authorities constitutes a transfer. Not at all. Again, this is only about privacy shield and actual transfers to the US. > It's simply unreconcilable with the ECHR Right To Privacy and GDPR. That's the FUD I was talking about considering that this is exactly the same situation as access by EU-based law enforcement. EU is playing politics and is tangling itself in unworkable legislation.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > Not at all. Again, this is only about privacy shield and actual transfers to the US. You are wrong on this. The CJEU ruled that making EU data “available” to an entity in a third country is a transfer, and the European Data Protection Board subsequently clarified that remote access from a third country triggers the GDPR transfer rules.