Here’s how the Facebook case has just transformed the surveillance debate

Fil 7/10/2015

This privacy activist has just won an enormous victory against U.S. surveillance. Here’s how. - The Washington Post
▻https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/10/06/this-privacy-activist-has-just-won-an-enormous-victory-against-u-s-s

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2015/10/schrems.jpg

Max Schrems

The new court decision has fundamental consequences. It not only invalidates Safe Harbor, but makes it clear that any new arrangement has to be fundamentally different from the old one. It not only has to protect European citizens better against U.S. e-commerce firms, but has to protect them against the U.S. state.

Here’s how the Facebook case has just transformed the surveillance debate - The Washington Post
▻https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/10/06/heres-how-the-facebook-case-has-just-transformed-the-surveillance-de

The Safe Harbor was (as described in earlier research on it) a rickety institution; formally, it was not even an agreement between the E.U. and United States, but an exchange of letters. The European Court of Justice will clearly not accept a deal with shaky foundations; it wants law.

#privacy #militer #facebook #NSA #Snowden

Fil

Stephane M @stephane_m 7/10/2015

La Cour européenne de Justice est sans doute la seule institution européenne qu’il faut protéger et conserver. Mais celle-là gardons là !

Stephane M @stephane_m
tbn @thibnton PUBLIC DOMAIN 9/11/2015

#Safe_Harbor

tbn @thibnton PUBLIC DOMAIN
Fil @fil 13/06/2016

ça se complique sérieusement :)
►http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/eu-facebook-schrems-case-us-government-amicus-curiae

Fil @fil
tbn @thibnton PUBLIC DOMAIN 14/06/2016

The US government has asked to be joined as a party in the Irish High Court case between the Austrian privacy activist and lawyer Max Schrems, and the social network Facebook. In a press release, Schrems called this “an unusual move.”
He told Ars that there are no documents relating to the “amicus curiae”—friend of the court—request yet. “The US government simply appeared via a barrister at the first (administrative) hearing today,” he said. “They will be able to file the documents until the 22nd.”
Schrems speculated that the US government has made this move because it wanted to defend its surveillance laws before the European Courts. “I think this move will be very interesting,” he told Ars. “The US has previously maintained that we all misunderstood US surveillance.”
The Court of Justice of the European Union struck down the Safe Harbour agreement between the EU and the US largely because of fears that personal data sent from the EU to the US would be subject to US surveillance without sufficient safeguards. The latest move seems to be an attempt by the US government to convince European courts that personal data is adequately protected when it is transferred to the US.
But as Schrems notes in his press release, the US government’s bold approach carries risks. “Compared to diplomatic talks with the EU and EU member states, as well as public statements in the United States, it will not be protected by US laws on confidentiality and be placed under oath,” he wrote. “The party that gives evidence on behalf of the US government could therefore face severe consequences, if he does not truthfully answer all questions raised on US mass surveillance.”

tbn @thibnton PUBLIC DOMAIN

Écrire un commentaire