Will companies simply turn to consent as the basis for cross-border data transfer? #SchremsII 1/
German government had suggested that the CJEU shouldn't hear the case because Max Schrems had possibly consented to data transfer to US. #SchremsII 2/
CJEU responded Facebook didn't rely on consent, but rather SCCs, for data transfer. I'm sure Facebook meant that it thought either basis was sufficient--but lack of clarity on this doomed this argument. 3/
Facebook didn't want to hang its hat on consent, because consent is very tricky. 4/
Article 49 (1) of the GDPR permits transfer “the data subject has explicitly consented to the proposed transfer, after having been informed of the possible risks of such transfers for the data subject due to the absence of an adequacy decision and appropriate safeguards." 5/5
@t_streinz has very important insights on the possibility of consent as a basis for data transfer -- see this string beginning here
The largest data protection fine in EU history stems from the transfer of data across borders--to the US--with no showing of any ongoing access by impermissible third parties (such as the NSA) beyond that in Snowden disclosures or any deceptive use of information by Meta. 1/
The U.S. has been seeking to revive a EU adequacy ruling following the CJEU's decision in Schrems II, and it seems that this seems likely sometime reasonably soon (but not soon enough for Facebook, clearly). 3/
I joined the protestors who lined the hall outside. I held a sign (that somebody had written, not me--I wish I could take credit) that read "Anti-Semitism doesn't only hurt Jewish people." 2/
Having protested, I also wanted to hear what the speaker, Dr. Muhammad, would say. I took my sign in with me, and sat in the balcony. 3/
No one: Anupam, what do you think of the Trump decision?
Anupam: A 🧵 on the Facebook Oversight Board decision, what I call “Trump I.” It includes a prediction of what Facebook will do—so you can tell me I’m wrong at the end of the year! 1/
This was a sophisticated decision, written for the Trump case, but with future global leaders in mind. And it's, crucially, not the Oversight Board's last word on the issue. The Board didn't punt exactly--like many appeals courts, it sent it back for further consideration. 2/
Given both the facts of the Trump case, and the precedent for world leaders, it is pretty clear that the Oversight Board had to approve Facebook’s immediate decision to suspend Trump, lest the Board abet Facebook being used to foment violence by leaders in the future. 3/
I've now read Judge Nichols' opinion explaining the basis for his preliminary injunction last night against the TikTok Executive Order. Some comments. 1/
First, Judge Nichols has seen the government's secret evidence against TikTok--but he concludes this: "the specific evidence of the threat posed by Plaintiffs, as well as whether the prohibitions are the only effective way to address that threat, remains less substantial" 2/
Second, Judge Nichols' IEEPA interpretation is powerfully argued and persuasive. This case suggests that any IEEPA-based ban of TikTok will be permanently enjoined, if appellate courts agree (assuming appeal actually taken). 3/
The Wednesday order by Judge Carl Nichols should have been read as a warning by the Government--he asked for either a brief defending the ban, or a postponement to November. He literally asked whether they wanted to concede to one of TikTok's requests. 2/
This Judge temporarily enjoined the TikTok ban despite receiving secret national security information offered by the Trump Administration to defend that ban. 3/