The CJEU clearly upheld its string of serious data protection cases against gov access to personal data, starting with Digital Rights Ireland, then Schrems I, then Tele2Sverige, EU-Canada PNR Opinion. If you knew those decisions, the outcome of the PS assessment is no surprise.
The surprise was that the Court decided to go full strength on in this particular case, after the AG has given it a way out to postpone the assessment of the PS and focus on SCCs. Clearly, the Court saw an inextricable link between the two. The other option would have been...
to show the weaknesses of the Privacy Shield and give the Commission and the US government time to act/react, while sharpening Commission's attention to the rest of the world too, with Chinese-based apps taking more and more of the European market very recently.
Worrying news from Brazil 🇧🇷 The Fake News bill being discussed by Congress imposes mandatory social media account ID registration (!) and seems to be aiming to strict data localization and data retention obligations. 1/5 #LGPD#GDPR#privacy
If you thought mandatory SIM card registration is bad, this is worse. All social media users would have to provide valid Brazilian ID or passports if they’re foreigners & a Brazilian phone number to be able to open a user account. 2/5
It also aims to impose data retention obligations for internet connection logs (!) for 1 year by ISPs and 6 months by online applications. Plans for EU Adequacy post-LGPD may be … problematic. See CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland curia.europa.eu/juris/document… 3/5 #dataretention#GDPR
Andrea Jelinek, Chair of @EU_EDPB, said there are currently 70 cross-border cases w final decisions, proving that OSS works; ‘these are not spectacular cases in terms of fines’ though #CPDP2020#OneStopShop#GDPR
Most of these +70 cases are related to the rights of the data subject (erasure & access), followwd by cases related to data breach notifications.
One of the main challenges for smooth functioning of OSS are differences in national peocedural laws. ‘Resolution of cross border cases is time & resource consuming & intensive’ #CPDP2020
I still can't stop being amazed by the 1973 HEW Report, which recommended a US Federal Code for Fair Information Practice. Check this out - it recommended all those goodies that are currently a GDPR trademark, starting with having some sort of DPO in place 1/ :
Have data security measures in place and only share personal data with third parties after ensuring the third party has appropriate safeguards in place 2/
And it even recognized some sort of portability rights. Yes, #portability! 3/
Setting the scene: this is not a data protection or #privacy case. This is a case concerning deletion of information, but grounded on defamation. It is irrelevant for the case at hand that those comments contained personal data, even if they did. 2/
Fun fact: the #GDPR specifically excludes from its scope of application those situations which also fall under the scope of liability rules for intermediary service providers, Art 12 to 15 from eCommerce Directive, precisely what the CJEU was asked to interpret. 3/
@winfriedveil@PrivacyMatters@WieseSvanberg@hartzog It is not me or you who ultimately say #EUDataP is about control or not. We are not talking about an intellectual construct here, but about a fundamental right distinct than privacy, protected at constitutional level in the European Union. A constitutional order which 1/14
@winfriedveil@PrivacyMatters@WieseSvanberg@hartzog is guaranteed by the Court of Justice of the EU, which beautifully laid out in several of its cases what this right is and is not. Look for example at para 48 in Nowak, where the Court explains that data protection principles are “reflected” 2/14
@winfriedveil@PrivacyMatters@WieseSvanberg@hartzog in accountability obligations of the controller & in the rights that are conferred to the person to know about the processing, see the data, to request correction and even to object. Speaking of the right to object, it’s one of clearest manifestations of control in #EUDataP 3/14
An “establishment” of a non-EU entity in the EU doesn't require a registered branch/subsidiary. Any stable arrangements will be taken into account 4 data protection law purposes.But merely the fact that the company’s website is accessible from the EU is not an "establishment"2/14
A processor in the EU is not deemed to be an “establishment” of the non-EU controller in the EU. The existence of the controller-processor relationship does not trigger the application of the #GDPR to the non-EU controller 3/14