EU-US nuovo accordo Safe Harbour . Considerazioni ART29WP
ecco l'attesa risposta dell'ART29WP sull'EU-US Privacy Shield https://scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming/article-29-subgroup-implementation-of-th... -- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)
STATEMENT OF THE ARTICLE 29 WORKING PARTY ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHREMS JUDGMENT http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-... On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:09:11 +0100 "Alessandro Mantelero" <alessandro.mantelero@polito.it> wrote:
ecco l'attesa risposta dell'ART29WP sull'EU-US Privacy Shield
https://scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming/article-29-subgroup-implementation-of-th...
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)
Anche Intercept è critico, citando fonti di parlamento UE e diritti civili... <https://theintercept.com/2016/02/03/new-safe-harbor-data-deal-may-be-more-po...> Jan Philipp Albrecht, a member of the European Parliament serving on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs,quickly <http://www.greens-efa.eu/eu-us-data-protectionsafe-harbour-15127.html>lashed out at the deal, calling it “an affront to the European Court of Justice” that “foresees no legally binding improvements” to American or European spying laws. “There has only been a political agreement on the general framework” of the data-sharing arrangement, Albrecht told me in a telephone interview. “The deadline has passed, and they have not delivered. This is not really improving the legal situation of European citizens — there’s not any change in the legal text foreseen.” He said the U.S. was only required to “make a promise that everything’s fine” and appoint “an ombudsman, who is just the messenger for answers that are the same” about U.S. policy. Estelle Masse, a policy analyst for the Brussels-based rights group Access Now, also thought the deal was built more on politics than a genuine intention to reform. “For months the negotiators were having political discussion about a legal question,” she wrote in an email to/The Intercept/. “The discussions were about whether the ruling was ‘anti-American’ or if the EU was rejecting the U.S. as a democracy. This is neither the case nor the point. As a result, what we have today is an attempt at a political fix.” European Digital Rights plainly described Tuesday’s announcement as Europe’s “plans to back down from defending the European Court’s ruling and accept a new badly flawed arrangement.” Joe McNamee, the rights group’s executive director, predicted that the deal would be a short term stop gap: “Today’s announcement means that European citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic face an extended period of uncertainty while waiting for this new stop-gap solution to fail.” Businesses and trade groups, while feverishly releasing congratulatory press releases as the deal was announced, worried privately that they may soon be right back in the same uncertain position. “Any risk of legal challenge is unsettling for business,” said Mike Uehlein, a spokesperson for the Direct Marketing Association, during a phone call with/The Intercept./While he emphasized that the trade group is “excited [negotiators have] continued to make this a priority,” he told me that a second European Court of Justice challenge would put “everyone back in the sticky situation, wondering what’s going to happen. It has not been fun.” Daniel Castro, a vice president at the Information, Technology, and Innovation Foundation, agreed that “uncertainty is always bad for business” but expressed optimism that good faith efforts to arrive at an agreement would likely continue. “The agreement shows that U.S. and EU policymakers are deeply committed to finding an interoperable solution.” [...] “The Redress Act doesn’t deal with any of the surveillance concerns in the Schrems case,” said Amie Stepanovich, U.S. policy manager for Access Now, over the phone on Tuesday. “We do think it is really important that substantive surveillance reform be put into place before [the agreement] can survive challenge. And EU member states need to take a look at their own surveillance practices.” Alberto On 03/02/2016 16:16, Alessandro Mantelero wrote:
STATEMENT OF THE ARTICLE 29 WORKING PARTY ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHREMS JUDGMENT
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-...
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:09:11 +0100 "Alessandro Mantelero" <alessandro.mantelero@polito.it> wrote:
ecco l'attesa risposta dell'ART29WP sull'EU-US Privacy Shield
https://scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming/article-29-subgroup-implementation-of-th...
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
E' ipotizzabile che vi siano criticità nell'accordo, come è ipotizzabile che esso sia una sorta di "ponte" verso un regime migliore. Negli US ci sono infatti diversi provvedimenti in discussione, in primis il Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act, così come una crescente pressione politico-economico-sociale per una maggior tutela dei dati. Alla vigilia delle elezioni presidenziali, non mi pare però realistico un significativo mutamento delle leggi sulla sorveglianza. L'accordo sblocca la situazione e permette ai vari attori (DPAs, Commissione, società civile, corti) di contribuire al miglioramento del quadro e, stante la posizione dell'ART29WP, rappresenta anche un'occasione per allargare la riflessione agli altri strumenti di legittimazione dei flussi dati (SCCs, BCRs). Detto questo, posto che nemmeno l'ART29WP ha ricevuto il testo dell'accordo, mi pare poco meditato esprimere giudizi su qualcosa di ancora ignoto, a meno che tutti questi soggetti non abbiano il testo approvato e allora sarebbe bene lo rendessero pubblico. AM On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:56:38 +0100 Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa@zeromx.net> wrote:
Anche Intercept è critico, citando fonti di parlamento UE e diritti civili...
<https://theintercept.com/2016/02/03/new-safe-harbor-data-deal-may-be-more-po...>
Jan Philipp Albrecht, a member of the European Parliament serving on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs,quickly <http://www.greens-efa.eu/eu-us-data-protectionsafe-harbour-15127.html>lashed out at the deal, calling it “an affront to the European Court of Justice” that “foresees no legally binding improvements” to American or European spying laws.
“There has only been a political agreement on the general framework” of the data-sharing arrangement, Albrecht told me in a telephone interview. “The deadline has passed, and they have not delivered. This is not really improving the legal situation of European citizens — there’s not any change in the legal text foreseen.” He said the U.S. was only required to “make a promise that everything’s fine” and appoint “an ombudsman, who is just the messenger for answers that are the same” about U.S. policy.
Estelle Masse, a policy analyst for the Brussels-based rights group Access Now, also thought the deal was built more on politics than a genuine intention to reform.
“For months the negotiators were having political discussion about a legal question,” she wrote in an email to/The Intercept/. “The discussions were about whether the ruling was ‘anti-American’ or if the EU was rejecting the U.S. as a democracy. This is neither the case nor the point. As a result, what we have today is an attempt at a political fix.”
European Digital Rights plainly described Tuesday’s announcement as Europe’s “plans to back down from defending the European Court’s ruling and accept a new badly flawed arrangement.” Joe McNamee, the rights group’s executive director, predicted that the deal would be a short term stop gap: “Today’s announcement means that European citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic face an extended period of uncertainty while waiting for this new stop-gap solution to fail.”
Businesses and trade groups, while feverishly releasing congratulatory press releases as the deal was announced, worried privately that they may soon be right back in the same uncertain position.
“Any risk of legal challenge is unsettling for business,” said Mike Uehlein, a spokesperson for the Direct Marketing Association, during a phone call with/The Intercept./While he emphasized that the trade group is “excited [negotiators have] continued to make this a priority,” he told me that a second European Court of Justice challenge would put “everyone back in the sticky situation, wondering what’s going to happen. It has not been fun.”
Daniel Castro, a vice president at the Information, Technology, and Innovation Foundation, agreed that “uncertainty is always bad for business” but expressed optimism that good faith efforts to arrive at an agreement would likely continue. “The agreement shows that U.S. and EU policymakers are deeply committed to finding an interoperable solution.”
[...]
“The Redress Act doesn’t deal with any of the surveillance concerns in the Schrems case,” said Amie Stepanovich, U.S. policy manager for Access Now, over the phone on Tuesday. “We do think it is really important that substantive surveillance reform be put into place before [the agreement] can survive challenge. And EU member states need to take a look at their own surveillance practices.”
Alberto
On 03/02/2016 16:16, Alessandro Mantelero wrote:
STATEMENT OF THE ARTICLE 29 WORKING PARTY ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHREMS JUDGMENT
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-...
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:09:11 +0100 "Alessandro Mantelero" <alessandro.mantelero@polito.it> wrote:
ecco l'attesa risposta dell'ART29WP sull'EU-US Privacy Shield
https://scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming/article-29-subgroup-implementation-of-th...
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)
Una delle criticità che viene sottolineata è proprio che, contrariamente alla prassi, nessuno ha ancora visto il testo dell'accordo. Diversi commentatori leggono il fatto come un modo per "rispettare la scadenza" e frenare le DPA. Julie Brill, negoziatrice US (FTC) dell'accordo, ha rilasciato un'intervista: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzB3GrYcpjk> Parla di "stronger FTC/DPA coordination" e di "addressing consumer complaints" (con in più ADR gratuite e referral delle DPA nazionali verso FTC) ma sempre ribadendo il bilanciamento con la sicurezza nazionale. Surveillance side: il privacy system US è complesso... Gli europei fanno fatica a capirlo. L'intelligence community ha fatto grandi sforzi per far capire come funziona. I partner di UE DG Justice hanno capito, mentre le DPA no. Una persona in US accoglierà le lamentele dei cittadini US in merito a Sigint... In merito ai dettagli dell'accordo, devono ancora essere scritti da parte di UE(!). A marzo a Berlino Art29DP valuterà se l'accordo rispecchia le loro valutazioni. Altri commenti: <https://theintercept.com/2016/02/03/new-safe-harbor-data-deal-may-be-more-po...> “The deadline has passed, and they have not delivered. This is not really improving the legal situation of European citizens — there’s not any change in the legal text foreseen.” He said the U.S. was only required to “make a promise that everything’s fine” and appoint “an ombudsman, who is just the messenger for answers that are the same” about U.S. policy. <https://edri.org/privacyshield-unspinning-the-spin/> However, fundamental problems remain with the key mass surveillance measures, in particular Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Executive Order 12.333. A simple question needs to be asked: if the judicial body tasked with oversight of implementation of FISA can be “systematically misled“, if the author of the PATRIOT Act can complain of that legislation being “abused“, if a group of congressmen can credibly accuse the Director of National Intelligence of “lying to Congress under oath” then what trust can non-US citizens have in letters signed by an outgoing US President? <https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/privacy-shield-a-safe-harbour...> Privacy Shield is more Privacy Figleaf, hastily bestowed to cover up the failure to produce an actual, written agreement in time to meet a January 31st deadline imposed three months ago, post-Schrems decision, by the Article 29 working group of European data protection authorities. What is the point in Europeans having judicial redress when they will not know if their data has been spied on? It is likely that the new deal will be tested in the European Court of Justice. But if the European Commission tells the court that American privacy protection is now adequate, it will be a lot harder for judges to rule otherwise. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains...> Mi pare chiaro che sono stati (e forse efficacemente) affrontati problemi di armonizzazione della DP ma non il nodo della questione sorveglianza. Ma, come dici, aspettiamo il testo e che diranno le DPA... Alberto On 04/02/2016 07:58, Alessandro Mantelero wrote:
E' ipotizzabile che vi siano criticità nell'accordo, come è ipotizzabile che esso sia una sorta di "ponte" verso un regime migliore. Negli US ci sono infatti diversi provvedimenti in discussione, in primis il Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act, così come una crescente pressione politico-economico-sociale per una maggior tutela dei dati. Alla vigilia delle elezioni presidenziali, non mi pare però realistico un significativo mutamento delle leggi sulla sorveglianza. L'accordo sblocca la situazione e permette ai vari attori (DPAs, Commissione, società civile, corti) di contribuire al miglioramento del quadro e, stante la posizione dell'ART29WP, rappresenta anche un'occasione per allargare la riflessione agli altri strumenti di legittimazione dei flussi dati (SCCs, BCRs). Detto questo, posto che nemmeno l'ART29WP ha ricevuto il testo dell'accordo, mi pare poco meditato esprimere giudizi su qualcosa di ancora ignoto, a meno che tutti questi soggetti non abbiano il testo approvato e allora sarebbe bene lo rendessero pubblico.
AM
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:56:38 +0100 Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa@zeromx.net> wrote:
Anche Intercept è critico, citando fonti di parlamento UE e diritti civili...
<https://theintercept.com/2016/02/03/new-safe-harbor-data-deal-may-be-more-po...>
Jan Philipp Albrecht, a member of the European Parliament serving on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs,quickly <http://www.greens-efa.eu/eu-us-data-protectionsafe-harbour-15127.html>lashed out at the deal, calling it “an affront to the European Court of Justice” that “foresees no legally binding improvements” to American or European spying laws.
“There has only been a political agreement on the general framework” of the data-sharing arrangement, Albrecht told me in a telephone interview. “The deadline has passed, and they have not delivered. This is not really improving the legal situation of European citizens — there’s not any change in the legal text foreseen.” He said the U.S. was only required to “make a promise that everything’s fine” and appoint “an ombudsman, who is just the messenger for answers that are the same” about U.S. policy.
Estelle Masse, a policy analyst for the Brussels-based rights group Access Now, also thought the deal was built more on politics than a genuine intention to reform.
“For months the negotiators were having political discussion about a legal question,” she wrote in an email to/The Intercept/. “The discussions were about whether the ruling was ‘anti-American’ or if the EU was rejecting the U.S. as a democracy. This is neither the case nor the point. As a result, what we have today is an attempt at a political fix.”
European Digital Rights plainly described Tuesday’s announcement as Europe’s “plans to back down from defending the European Court’s ruling and accept a new badly flawed arrangement.” Joe McNamee, the rights group’s executive director, predicted that the deal would be a short term stop gap: “Today’s announcement means that European citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic face an extended period of uncertainty while waiting for this new stop-gap solution to fail.”
Businesses and trade groups, while feverishly releasing congratulatory press releases as the deal was announced, worried privately that they may soon be right back in the same uncertain position.
“Any risk of legal challenge is unsettling for business,” said Mike Uehlein, a spokesperson for the Direct Marketing Association, during a phone call with/The Intercept./While he emphasized that the trade group is “excited [negotiators have] continued to make this a priority,” he told me that a second European Court of Justice challenge would put “everyone back in the sticky situation, wondering what’s going to happen. It has not been fun.”
Daniel Castro, a vice president at the Information, Technology, and Innovation Foundation, agreed that “uncertainty is always bad for business” but expressed optimism that good faith efforts to arrive at an agreement would likely continue. “The agreement shows that U.S. and EU policymakers are deeply committed to finding an interoperable solution.”
[...]
“The Redress Act doesn’t deal with any of the surveillance concerns in the Schrems case,” said Amie Stepanovich, U.S. policy manager for Access Now, over the phone on Tuesday. “We do think it is really important that substantive surveillance reform be put into place before [the agreement] can survive challenge. And EU member states need to take a look at their own surveillance practices.”
Alberto
On 03/02/2016 16:16, Alessandro Mantelero wrote:
STATEMENT OF THE ARTICLE 29 WORKING PARTY ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHREMS JUDGMENT
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-...
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:09:11 +0100 "Alessandro Mantelero" <alessandro.mantelero@polito.it> wrote:
ecco l'attesa risposta dell'ART29WP sull'EU-US Privacy Shield
https://scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming/article-29-subgroup-implementation-of-th...
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)
questo è infatti l'incipit che ho usato in un primo commento a caldo Da Safe Harbour a Privacy Shield, cosa è cambiato? [...] La risposta corretta è “non si sa”. https://medium.com/@mantelero/da-safe-harbour-a-privacy-shield-cosa-%C3%A8-c... AM On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:39:06 +0100 Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa@zeromx.net> wrote:
Una delle criticità che viene sottolineata è proprio che, contrariamente alla prassi, nessuno ha ancora visto il testo dell'accordo. Diversi commentatori leggono il fatto come un modo per "rispettare la scadenza" e frenare le DPA.
Julie Brill, negoziatrice US (FTC) dell'accordo, ha rilasciato un'intervista: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzB3GrYcpjk> Parla di "stronger FTC/DPA coordination" e di "addressing consumer complaints" (con in più ADR gratuite e referral delle DPA nazionali verso FTC) ma sempre ribadendo il bilanciamento con la sicurezza nazionale. Surveillance side: il privacy system US è complesso... Gli europei fanno fatica a capirlo. L'intelligence community ha fatto grandi sforzi per far capire come funziona. I partner di UE DG Justice hanno capito, mentre le DPA no. Una persona in US accoglierà le lamentele dei cittadini US in merito a Sigint... In merito ai dettagli dell'accordo, devono ancora essere scritti da parte di UE(!). A marzo a Berlino Art29DP valuterà se l'accordo rispecchia le loro valutazioni.
Altri commenti: <https://theintercept.com/2016/02/03/new-safe-harbor-data-deal-may-be-more-po...> “The deadline has passed, and they have not delivered. This is not really improving the legal situation of European citizens — there’s not any change in the legal text foreseen.” He said the U.S. was only required to “make a promise that everything’s fine” and appoint “an ombudsman, who is just the messenger for answers that are the same” about U.S. policy.
<https://edri.org/privacyshield-unspinning-the-spin/> However, fundamental problems remain with the key mass surveillance measures, in particular Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Executive Order 12.333. A simple question needs to be asked: if the judicial body tasked with oversight of implementation of FISA can be “systematically misled“, if the author of the PATRIOT Act can complain of that legislation being “abused“, if a group of congressmen can credibly accuse the Director of National Intelligence of “lying to Congress under oath” then what trust can non-US citizens have in letters signed by an outgoing US President?
<https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/privacy-shield-a-safe-harbour...> Privacy Shield is more Privacy Figleaf, hastily bestowed to cover up the failure to produce an actual, written agreement in time to meet a January 31st deadline imposed three months ago, post-Schrems decision, by the Article 29 working group of European data protection authorities.
What is the point in Europeans having judicial redress when they will not know if their data has been spied on? It is likely that the new deal will be tested in the European Court of Justice. But if the European Commission tells the court that American privacy protection is now adequate, it will be a lot harder for judges to rule otherwise. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains...>
Mi pare chiaro che sono stati (e forse efficacemente) affrontati problemi di armonizzazione della DP ma non il nodo della questione sorveglianza.
Ma, come dici, aspettiamo il testo e che diranno le DPA...
Alberto
On 04/02/2016 07:58, Alessandro Mantelero wrote:
E' ipotizzabile che vi siano criticità nell'accordo, come è ipotizzabile che esso sia una sorta di "ponte" verso un regime migliore. Negli US ci sono infatti diversi provvedimenti in discussione, in primis il Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act, così come una crescente pressione politico-economico-sociale per una maggior tutela dei dati. Alla vigilia delle elezioni presidenziali, non mi pare però realistico un significativo mutamento delle leggi sulla sorveglianza. L'accordo sblocca la situazione e permette ai vari attori (DPAs, Commissione, società civile, corti) di contribuire al miglioramento del quadro e, stante la posizione dell'ART29WP, rappresenta anche un'occasione per allargare la riflessione agli altri strumenti di legittimazione dei flussi dati (SCCs, BCRs). Detto questo, posto che nemmeno l'ART29WP ha ricevuto il testo dell'accordo, mi pare poco meditato esprimere giudizi su qualcosa di ancora ignoto, a meno che tutti questi soggetti non abbiano il testo approvato e allora sarebbe bene lo rendessero pubblico.
AM
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:56:38 +0100 Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa@zeromx.net> wrote:
Anche Intercept è critico, citando fonti di parlamento UE e diritti civili...
<https://theintercept.com/2016/02/03/new-safe-harbor-data-deal-may-be-more-po...>
Jan Philipp Albrecht, a member of the European Parliament serving on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs,quickly <http://www.greens-efa.eu/eu-us-data-protectionsafe-harbour-15127.html>lashed out at the deal, calling it “an affront to the European Court of Justice” that “foresees no legally binding improvements” to American or European spying laws.
“There has only been a political agreement on the general framework” of the data-sharing arrangement, Albrecht told me in a telephone interview. “The deadline has passed, and they have not delivered. This is not really improving the legal situation of European citizens — there’s not any change in the legal text foreseen.” He said the U.S. was only required to “make a promise that everything’s fine” and appoint “an ombudsman, who is just the messenger for answers that are the same” about U.S. policy.
Estelle Masse, a policy analyst for the Brussels-based rights group Access Now, also thought the deal was built more on politics than a genuine intention to reform.
“For months the negotiators were having political discussion about a legal question,” she wrote in an email to/The Intercept/. “The discussions were about whether the ruling was ‘anti-American’ or if the EU was rejecting the U.S. as a democracy. This is neither the case nor the point. As a result, what we have today is an attempt at a political fix.”
European Digital Rights plainly described Tuesday’s announcement as Europe’s “plans to back down from defending the European Court’s ruling and accept a new badly flawed arrangement.” Joe McNamee, the rights group’s executive director, predicted that the deal would be a short term stop gap: “Today’s announcement means that European citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic face an extended period of uncertainty while waiting for this new stop-gap solution to fail.”
Businesses and trade groups, while feverishly releasing congratulatory press releases as the deal was announced, worried privately that they may soon be right back in the same uncertain position.
“Any risk of legal challenge is unsettling for business,” said Mike Uehlein, a spokesperson for the Direct Marketing Association, during a phone call with/The Intercept./While he emphasized that the trade group is “excited [negotiators have] continued to make this a priority,” he told me that a second European Court of Justice challenge would put “everyone back in the sticky situation, wondering what’s going to happen. It has not been fun.”
Daniel Castro, a vice president at the Information, Technology, and Innovation Foundation, agreed that “uncertainty is always bad for business” but expressed optimism that good faith efforts to arrive at an agreement would likely continue. “The agreement shows that U.S. and EU policymakers are deeply committed to finding an interoperable solution.”
[...]
“The Redress Act doesn’t deal with any of the surveillance concerns in the Schrems case,” said Amie Stepanovich, U.S. policy manager for Access Now, over the phone on Tuesday. “We do think it is really important that substantive surveillance reform be put into place before [the agreement] can survive challenge. And EU member states need to take a look at their own surveillance practices.”
Alberto
On 03/02/2016 16:16, Alessandro Mantelero wrote:
STATEMENT OF THE ARTICLE 29 WORKING PARTY ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHREMS JUDGMENT
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-...
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:09:11 +0100 "Alessandro Mantelero" <alessandro.mantelero@polito.it> wrote:
ecco l'attesa risposta dell'ART29WP sull'EU-US Privacy Shield
https://scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming/article-29-subgroup-implementation-of-th...
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino
Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor
http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero
EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)
participants (2)
-
Alberto Cammozzo -
Alessandro Mantelero