back to article Companies need answer to Safe Harbour worries, says minister

The move to strike down Safe Harbour has created worrying uncertainty for companies, the Conservative minister for intellectual property, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, has said. Responding to a Parliamentary question on the European Court of Justice’s judgement last month on the Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner case, Neville- …

  1. Vimes

    If you're in the UK then I wouldn't worry too much about enforcement.

    According to the ICO any enforcement from them would be a 'kneejerk' reaction.

    http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2429132/top-eu-court-rules-safe-harbour-invalid-leaving-us-data-transfers-in-tatters

    1. Warm Braw

      To be fair to the ICO, they appear to apply the same level of rigour to regulatory enforcement of all kinds.

  2. Trollslayer

    No uncertainty

    I am certain the US was abusing this and Europe was happy to do nothing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      Re: No uncertainty

      ...and has since legislated to make the whole "Safe[sic] Harbour" scam EVEN MORE UNTENABLE so no doubt our corrupt appeasers will be shoving through a "Safe[sic] Harbour II" fraud regardless, any moment now, to further piss all over the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" and pawn us off to the US as before.

      The ONLY reason the "Safe[sic] Harbour" fraud collapsed was that Snowden *PROVED* the thing was a sham... and that took fifteen years of abuse to happen! How long will it be until some poor sod does the same to the "Safe[sic] Harbour II" scam?

      1. John G Imrie

        Re: No uncertainty

        But once something has been done doing it again is easy.

        It should be simple to point out to the ECJ that nothing in the US has changed for the better, so please can you strike out Safe Harbour II, the US strikes back.

  3. Vimes

    The ICO have yet to explain why BCRs are any better than Safe Harbour given that the 'binding' in BCR has as little meaning with regards to US law as anything in Safe Harbour.

    It's amazing the efforts they've gone to so far to avoid answering this question.

  4. Salamamba
    Thumb Up

    "There is an important principle here that companies must be able to transfer data to third-party countries with appropriate safeguards"

    The Court obviously agreed.

    America has no such safeguards.

    1. nijam Silver badge

      > America has no such safeguards.

      In the minister's view, that is an appropriate level of safeguard, I think you'll find.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Respect our privacy

    There's the answer*. Simple.

    *Notwithstanding the obstacles to EU-US payments. If only there were a cash-like payment system that didn't reveal the buyer's identity to the seller in every measly little transaction...

  6. g e

    Is the Baroness reading this do you think?

    If so then fuck off.

    Sick of the elites in this country trying to make 'UK' into the 2-letter abbreviation for the fifty-nth state of the USA.

    1. Vimes

      Re: Is the Baroness reading this do you think?

      Personally I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that if - and ONLY if - we were given *ALL* of the protections from mass surveillance that the US thinks is good enough for their own citizens.

  7. nijam Silver badge

    > ...we are concerned about the uncertainty this judgement creates...

    There is no uncertainty. US law makes "Safe Harbour" untenable. Nothing new or surprising in it.

    Until Microsoft defeat (hahaha) the US government [1], no US company can be considered to comply with EU privacy laws, and that's before you even consider whether or not you trust the company.

    [1] In the legal case relating to data held in their Dublin datacentre.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The Dublin datacentre battle is about admissibility into court: i.e. about the *PUBLIC* admission of expatriate data into US government agencies. This would be handy for the US's FBI and the like as they could then ease up on ham-fistidly trying to fabricate evidence to secure convictions based on whispers and rumours from inadmissible US government sources... but it equally represents a *PUBLIC* RELATIONS catastrophe for NSAFT as it would mean the extent of their "extreme willingness" to acquiesce to the US "intelligence" machinery thereafter be banded about in courts for all to observe.

      It does NOT concern the (cosy) relationship between US corporations and the US "intelligence" agencies, or the extent of the co-operation between them... AT ALL... and is therefore completely irrelevant to matters of data sovereignty, security and privacy (such as this).

  8. Dr. Mouse

    The government urges the European Commission and US authorities to reach a swift conclusion on their negotiation of a revised agreement

    There can be no valid agreement without serious changes to the law on one side or the other.

    Either the US agrees to respect EU privacy laws for EU citizens data stored on their soil, and changes their law to codify this, or the EU weakens their privacy laws to allow for the US's laws.

  9. Laura Kerr
    Big Brother

    Migration

    Has anyone else with data migration experience seen an upsurge in slave trader calls since the EU flushed Safe Harbour round the U-bend? I started getting emails and calls about a week after the news broke.

    Pure coincidence, I'm sure.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Safe Harbor dead in the UK too

    If the UK government insists on becoming a clone US with its invasive laws it is in essence declaring itself unfit for handling private information as well.

    The Baroness would thus be best advised to have a quiet word with Theresa May, and in case that fails, a very loud and public word with her.

  11. Mark 85

    Point of no return?

    Was there ever such a thing? All the revelations over the spying/slurping by the US, UK, the EU, China, Russia, et al point out that it's been pretty meaningless all along. The US is guilty, but then so is every other country. Doesn't make it right but that's the way things have become. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when everyone is blaming everyone else and looking for a scapegoat when they're just as guilty.

    I'm not sure how to change this or if it's too late to change. There's been too many revelations of German agencies spying on their own politicians as well as everyone one. France... same... UK... hell GHCQ had people looking at Yahoo! Messenger piccy's (rogue agents obviously). Government wanting power, corporates wanting profit. The information flying down the pipes is a goldmine for both.

    The point is, have we hit the point of no return?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like