Latest in European Court of Justice
Schrems II will certainly affect the U.K.’s future data protection landscape. But the decision’s effects on Britain are not as catastrophic as some observers may have feared.
The judgment by the Court of Justice for the European Union has provoked a hostile reaction from U.S. national security and privacy experts. But it’s a wake-up call for how Americans should understand national security and surveillance in a world of global information networks.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently ruled that European Union (EU) member nations no longer have the right to deport a refugee for committing a serious crime, as long as the refugee can prove that returning to the home country would threaten his or her life. In the case of M and Others v.
Yesterday, DataGuidance and Sidley Austin LLP hosted a live Q&A wilth Giovanni Buttarelli, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), to discuss the state of play following the European Court of Justice's decision in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, which effectively invalidated the Safe Harbor framework.
Mr. Buttarelli outlines how the situation is being resolved and what practical options companies can consider in the wake of the decision.
Today’s decision by the European Court of Justice on safe harbor – Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, ably summarized by Lawfare’s Alex Loomis – ignores some very inconvenient truths about surveillance and privacy on both sides of the Atlantic. In this post, I explain what the ECJ ignores.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the principal European component of the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor Framework today in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner.
Bruce Schneier joins Stewart Baker and Alan Cohn for an episode recorded live in front of an audience of security and privacy professionals. Appearing at the conference Privacy. Security. Risk.