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.
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- …
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.
...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?
> ...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.
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).
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.
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.
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?