According to the European Parliament, Safe Harbor should be suspended. As harsh as this may sound, this is not an off the cuff remark by a maverick Member of Parliament, but the outcome of a hearing
According to the European Parliament, Safe Harbor should be suspended. As harsh as this may sound, this is not an off the cuff remark by a maverick Member of Parliament, but the outcome of a hearing on electronic surveillance of EU citizens involving some key figures of the EU data protection world that took place this week. The overall view was informed by the following opinions:
* Chris Connolly of Galexia, who in 2008 conducted a study of Safe Harbor further updated in 2010, argued that Safe Harbor was ineffective to protect personal data and that 98% of all Safe Harbor signatories fail to mention potential disclosures of data for national security purposes.
* Imke Summer, Chair of the German Conference of Federal and State Data Protection Commissioners, pointed out that the German authorities believed that there is a substantial likelihood that the Safe Harbor principles are being violated, and that Safe Harbor is simply unable to limit access by US intelligence services to personal data exported from the EU.
* Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, provided a more legally accurate and balanced view, by rightly acknowledging the merits of Safe Harbor whilst highlighting that mass surveillance programs would probably exceed the scope of the exceptions to the Safe Harbor principles.
Is suspension the only option then? Of course not and it would be insane to brush away the efforts that have been made over the past decade to introduce EU data protection standards into the practices of thousands of US corporations. However, an update of the content of Safe Harbor is more than likely now. At the very least we can expect that the European Commission will make a considerable effort to persuade the US Administration to bring Safe Harbor back to the negotiation table.
* Chris Connolly of Galexia, who in 2008 conducted a study of Safe Harbor further updated in 2010, argued that Safe Harbor was ineffective to protect personal data and that 98% of all Safe Harbor signatories fail to mention potential disclosures of data for national security purposes.
* Imke Summer, Chair of the German Conference of Federal and State Data Protection Commissioners, pointed out that the German authorities believed that there is a substantial likelihood that the Safe Harbor principles are being violated, and that Safe Harbor is simply unable to limit access by US intelligence services to personal data exported from the EU.
* Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, provided a more legally accurate and balanced view, by rightly acknowledging the merits of Safe Harbor whilst highlighting that mass surveillance programs would probably exceed the scope of the exceptions to the Safe Harbor principles.
Is suspension the only option then? Of course not and it would be insane to brush away the efforts that have been made over the past decade to introduce EU data protection standards into the practices of thousands of US corporations. However, an update of the content of Safe Harbor is more than likely now. At the very least we can expect that the European Commission will make a considerable effort to persuade the US Administration to bring Safe Harbor back to the negotiation table.