In my last post, I said that the European Court of Justice decision in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commission ignores some inconvenient truths. US frustrations with European double standards on surveillance are understandable. They are also beside the point. The US must reform surveillance law – specifically, Section 702 of FISA – if it wants to restore safe harbor.
Latest in Safe Harbor
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner: Some Inconvenient Truths The European Court of Justice Ignores
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.
Last week, the Court of Justice for the European Union’s Advocate General published an opinion that casts doubt on the future of the so-called United States-European Union “safe harbor framework”—a legal arrangement which enables much of the U.S. tech community’s European operations. The advocate general’s opinion is not binding.
Cyberlaw negotiations are the theme of episode 82, as the US and China strike a potentially significant agreement on commercial cyberespionage and Europeans focus on tearing up agreements with the US and intruding on US sovereignty.
Still trying to dig out from under our hiatus backlog, we devote episode 80 to our regulars. We’ll bring back a guest next week. This week it’s a double dose of Jason Weinstein, Michael Vatis, Stewart Baker, and Congress-watcher Doug Kantor.