Sign in / up

back to article Bulk sensitive data slurp? You can't stand under our umbrella-ella-ella – EDPS

A data protection framework that will underpin the exchange of personal data between law enforcement agencies in the EU and US should not apply when sensitive information is to be transferred to the US in bulk, an EU privacy watchdog has said. The data protection "umbrella" agreement was announced by the European Commission …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Right to define is not right to waive

    The right to legislate in this area stems from the EU Privacy Right and Data Protection rights. A right to legislate to PROTECT something, is not a right to legislate to REMOVE those protections.

    Just as the "Right to Life" doesn't permit the EU Commission from legalizing murder.

    You can't have a blanket agreement with the US, the individual companies need to comply with EU law, because the promise from the US has been shown to be worthless. This is not a big deal, its affords EU the same leverage that China and Russia get with these companies that also operate in their territory.

    So why would you give away our leverage anyway? I realize that Snowden revelations reveal a system of surveillance + leverage against you, but you can't turncoat in secret now, we know the deal. So why not stop pretending to do your jobs while undermining us, and instead actually DO your job?

    4 0 Reply
  2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "Judicial Redress Bill " AFAIK this only applies to *US* citizens

    EU nationals --> foriners --> F**k em.

    I'm confused.

    Are they saying ""No fishing trips on EU data" IE "We think a 20-30 YO Black haired EU national committed a crime in <nowheresvill, USA> and want a list of all EU nationals for elimination purposes

    Or

    "Sure, no problem. Bulk requests have no expectation of privacy."

    3 0 Reply
  3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "Falque-Pierrotin said, though, that she does not think the Judicial Redress Bill will address those concerns because the Bill would not apply to cases concerning access to data for national security purposes."

    It fails to address concerns at a much more fundamental level than that. Redress should not be in the US against whoever abused the data there; data subjects should not be subject to the trouble of taking action in a country in which they do not reside especially where it might well be the government of that country responsible for the abuse. Redress should be in the data subject's home jurisdiction against whoever transferred it to the US.

    3 0 Reply
    1. Mephistro
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Up

      @ Dr Sintax

      ^This!

      I'd like to add:

      "...because the Bill would not apply to cases concerning access to data for national security purposes."

      "National security purposes" translates as "whatever the f**k they want", as the War on Terrorism has basically absorbed concepts like drug smuggling and use, money laundering, weapons traffic, and even copyright protection, amongst others. While this was to be expected, the side effect is that it can be used to massively spy on the serfs general public. They basically have a free ticket to Europeans private data, and this agreement doesn't prevent this.

      Example: subject X is laundering money through a bank account in Luxenbourg. As this money laundering 'could' be linked to terrism, "They" are free to access all the bank's customers data!

      1 0 Reply
      1. Paul Crawford Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: @national security purposes

        Its far worse that "any bollocks we chose to call national security" because its any bollocks another government, for whom we have no democratic input to, chooses to call national security.

        That is a big point - while I have serious doubts about the integrity of my own government, at least I have a vote in the matter. Far from perfect, but something others have fought and died for.

        1 0 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      "Redress should be in the data subject's home jurisdiction against whoever transferred it to the US."

      It should also be in the data subject's home jurisdiction against whoever in the US misused it, regardless of which agency or company. If that means using EU citizen's data in the US means that US companies have to pay a few fares to turn up in European courts, tough. We've been asked to extradite to the US before now for things that aren't crimes committed in Europe ...

      3 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

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

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like