Stakeholders are increasingly advocating for a multilateral accord on government surveillance.
Latest in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner
Most current approaches to resolving the EU-U.S. conflict fall short. It’s time for a hybrid approach.
Nearly all U.S. companies should have no difficulty showing that U.S. surveillance authorities at issue will not interfere with their ability to comply with standard contractual clauses.
A recent exchange over the privacy practices of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program contributed to the mounting crisis between the United States and the European Union over transatlantic data transfers, privacy, and national security surveillance.
What changes can the U.S. make to satisfy Schrems II’s requirements?
The U.S. government has issued a white paper to help maintain the free and lawful flow of commercial and government data from the European Union to the United States after Schrems II.
The decision of the European Court of Justice in Schrems II is gobsmacking in its mix of judicial imperialism and Eurocentric hypocrisy.
There’s a lot going on in the privacy and data protection world. But one of the most pressing issues is the uncertain fate of Privacy Shield, the framework governing the flow of data between the EU and the U.S. for commercial purposes.
European hypocrisy on data protection is a lot like the weather. Everyone complains about it but no one does anything about it. Until today.
Over the past fifteen years, an uneasy trans-Atlantic equilibrium between U.S. law enforcement and security agencies’ collection of personal information, sometimes on a bulk basis, and European privacy protection imperatives has prevailed—even despite Edward Snowden's disclosures. Most notably, beginning in the immediate post-9/11 era, international agreements enabling U.S. access to Europeans’ airline passenger name records (PNR) and international bank transaction data were reached, and have been quietly functioning.