[ad_1]
This week, the European Fee adopted a brand new adequacy determination for the EU-US Information Privateness Framework. Max Schrems, the influential Austrian lawyer and knowledge privateness activist who already efficiently had the 2 earlier incarnations of the treaty overturned by the European Courtroom of Justice (CJEU), nonetheless sees the brand new treaty as little greater than a carbon copy of the failed “Privateness Protect”.
In consequence, the brand new Trans-Atlantic Information Privateness Framework is anticipated to finish up within the CJEU once more inside just a few months, predicts Schrems. In his opinion, the basic downside is that the USA has refused to “reform FISA 702 to present non-US individuals cheap privateness protections”. “We now had ‘Harbors’, ‘Umbrellas’, ‘Shields’ and ‘Frameworks’ – however no substantial change in US surveillance regulation,” Schrems goes on to say. Monday’s European Fee press launch was nearly a word-for-word reproduction of the one launched 23 years in the past. The mere rivalry that one thing is “new”, “strong” or “efficient” is not going to be adequate to fulfill the European Courtroom of Justice.
Noyb has already laid the groundwork for launching numerous authorized challenges to the brand new treaty earlier than the CJEU. It may be assumed that the brand new treaty might be utilized by the primary firms over the subsequent few months, opening the trail for it to be challenged in courtroom. Additionally it is not unlikely that such a problem could attain the CJEU from a nationwide courtroom by the tip of 2023 or in early 2024, giving the European courtroom the choice of suspending the framework throughout the process.
Regardless of enormous outrage within the EU following the Snowdon revelations and repeated calls from the European Parliament to implement counter-measures, the Fee seems to be giving priority to EU-US relations and financial pressures on each side of the Atlantic on the expense of the rights of European residents and the necessities of European regulation, writes Schrems. The Fee talks up its function as “guardian of the treaties” and defender of the “rule of regulation” within the EU in relation to member states violating EU regulation, however is now itself ignoring the European Courtroom of Justice for the third time.
We’re eagerly awaiting “Schrems III“ and wish to take this chance to once more level out that we develop our cloud providers in Europe and provide them 100% in compliance with GDPR – at all times consistent with regionally relevant knowledge privateness and compliance necessities. Discover out extra on our web site or immediately out of your native Retarus consultant.
Picture (c) noyb/Georg Molterer
Tags: GDPR
[ad_2]
Source link