Yesterday, the United States and the EU announced they had reached an agreement on the EU's future use of personal data of US companies after the European Court of justice struck down the so-called agreement Safe Harbor precedent. However, a closer look shows the new "deal" to be little more than an attempt to save face.
The European Union has long leaned back to give the US everything it has requested on its own citizens. The United States requested PNR on all flights in the EU, and received ( "PNR"). The United States has requested data on all financial transactions ( "SWIFT") and received.
One has to ask why this is in the interest of the European Union. It is generally not, actually. But the EU is a bureaucracy multifaceted with many competing interests, and the executive power - the European Commission - has always been more willing to sell out the interests of EU citizens when the US request. It was not only evident in the above case, but also with lopsided "trade agreements" such as ACTA. The primary counterweight to the Commission are the European Parliament, which elected representatives and is an equivalent of the legislative branch and the European Court of Justice, which is the equivalent of the judicial branch.
It is in the light of the previous arrangement that "Safe Harbor" of the Commission was annulled by the European Court of Justice. There are very strong privacy safeguards for personal data in the European Union and the Commission have essentially said that as US companies promise to adhere to these guarantees, they are free to take the data to servers elsewhere.
now, the European Court of Justice cleared his throat, said, "NSA," said "mass surveillance", and said that US companies do not have agency to make such a promise as long as the US government is doing what it does, and quickly canceled the arrangement "Safe Harbor" of the Commission. It was a shame for the European Commission and the United States as well (the latter trying to pretend that mass monitoring does not exist, or at least does not matter).
It is in light of this embarrassment yesterday's announcement must be understood.
There are no new case. There are no new text of a new agreement. It is, at most, an agreement to come to an agreement that does not yet exist.
This is an attempt to try to save face.
The essence of the agreement that are not still seems to be some sort of guarantee from the United States to exempt data of citizens of the European Union for mass surveillance when he is managed by American companies, as a prerequisite for US companies of data processing EU citizens in the first place. But this is a contradiction in terms: mass surveillance can not be said of the European data outside other data without first looking and sniffing. The sort of action requires observation.
If the European Commission is moving forward with a new Safe Harbor that looks like this, or like the former, the European Court of Justice will just nix again. This will only face-saving in the long term.
0 Komentar