SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Advisor to Top EU Court Slams NSA's 'Mass, Indiscriminate Surveillance'
Advocate General of the European Court of Justice says EU-US data sharing agreement violates fundamental rights of EU citizens.
Sep 23, 2015
A data sharing agreement between the EU and U.S.--where the NSA engages in "mass, indiscriminate surveillance"--violates the fundamental rights of EU citizens and is invalid, an advisor to the EU's top court said Wednesday.
The opinion issued by Yves Bot, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (CJEU), relates to the 2000 "Safe Harbor" agreement, which allows for the transfer of commercial data, including Facebook user data, from the EU to US companies that say they are in compliance with EU privacy laws. The Guardian adds: "The arrangement allows the NSA to use the PRISM surveillance system exposed by [NSA whistleblower Edward] Snowden to wade through billions of bits of personal data, communication and information held by nine internet companies."
The Irish Times sums up what Bot's opinion means:
To Facebook and other US companies collecting user data within the EU, the ruling was clear: you can either operate in Europe or you can collaborate with NSA surveillance, not both.
To the European Commission, an equally stark message: you are betraying the fundamental rights of EU citizens by continuing the "Safe Harbour" data sharing regime.
Reuters offers this background on the case:
The case stems from a complaint filed by 27-year-old Austrian law student Max Schrems against Facebook, alleging the company was helping the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) harvest email and other private data by forwarding European customer's data to servers in the United States.
Facebook rejects the claim that it provided the NSA with "backdoor" access to its servers and would wait for the full judgment, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
The Irish Data Protection Commissioner, who watches over major tech companies' compliance with privacy laws since they are headquartered in Ireland, rejected the complaint, saying such transfers were allowed under the Safe Harbour framework.
But the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after Schrems appealed.
"It is apparent from the findings of the High Court of Ireland and of the Commission itself that the law and practice of the United States allow the large-scale collection of the personal data of citizens of the EU which is transferred, without those citizens benefiting from effective judicial protection," the CJEU statement (pdf) reads.
"The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data," the statement adds.
"According to the Advocate General, that interference with fundamental rights is contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular because the surveillance carried out by the United States intelligence services is mass, indiscriminate surveillance," it reads.
It's not a binding opinion of the full Court; however, Bloomberg reports: "The EU court follows such advice in a majority of cases." And digital rights groups see that potential ruling as huge.
"If confirmed by the full Court, this is a very important step for the right to privacy in Europe," said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights, a Brussels-based coalition of privacy and civil rights organizations.
In an initial response to Bot's opinion, Schrems stated (pdf) that "it seems like years of work could pay off. Now we just have to hope that the judges of the Court of Justice will follow the advocate general's opinion in principle."
"What happens next is crucial," McNamee added. "It must never again happen... that obduracy from the Commission can keep agreements or laws in force that are patently illegal."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A data sharing agreement between the EU and U.S.--where the NSA engages in "mass, indiscriminate surveillance"--violates the fundamental rights of EU citizens and is invalid, an advisor to the EU's top court said Wednesday.
The opinion issued by Yves Bot, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (CJEU), relates to the 2000 "Safe Harbor" agreement, which allows for the transfer of commercial data, including Facebook user data, from the EU to US companies that say they are in compliance with EU privacy laws. The Guardian adds: "The arrangement allows the NSA to use the PRISM surveillance system exposed by [NSA whistleblower Edward] Snowden to wade through billions of bits of personal data, communication and information held by nine internet companies."
The Irish Times sums up what Bot's opinion means:
To Facebook and other US companies collecting user data within the EU, the ruling was clear: you can either operate in Europe or you can collaborate with NSA surveillance, not both.
To the European Commission, an equally stark message: you are betraying the fundamental rights of EU citizens by continuing the "Safe Harbour" data sharing regime.
Reuters offers this background on the case:
The case stems from a complaint filed by 27-year-old Austrian law student Max Schrems against Facebook, alleging the company was helping the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) harvest email and other private data by forwarding European customer's data to servers in the United States.
Facebook rejects the claim that it provided the NSA with "backdoor" access to its servers and would wait for the full judgment, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
The Irish Data Protection Commissioner, who watches over major tech companies' compliance with privacy laws since they are headquartered in Ireland, rejected the complaint, saying such transfers were allowed under the Safe Harbour framework.
But the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after Schrems appealed.
"It is apparent from the findings of the High Court of Ireland and of the Commission itself that the law and practice of the United States allow the large-scale collection of the personal data of citizens of the EU which is transferred, without those citizens benefiting from effective judicial protection," the CJEU statement (pdf) reads.
"The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data," the statement adds.
"According to the Advocate General, that interference with fundamental rights is contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular because the surveillance carried out by the United States intelligence services is mass, indiscriminate surveillance," it reads.
It's not a binding opinion of the full Court; however, Bloomberg reports: "The EU court follows such advice in a majority of cases." And digital rights groups see that potential ruling as huge.
"If confirmed by the full Court, this is a very important step for the right to privacy in Europe," said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights, a Brussels-based coalition of privacy and civil rights organizations.
In an initial response to Bot's opinion, Schrems stated (pdf) that "it seems like years of work could pay off. Now we just have to hope that the judges of the Court of Justice will follow the advocate general's opinion in principle."
"What happens next is crucial," McNamee added. "It must never again happen... that obduracy from the Commission can keep agreements or laws in force that are patently illegal."
A data sharing agreement between the EU and U.S.--where the NSA engages in "mass, indiscriminate surveillance"--violates the fundamental rights of EU citizens and is invalid, an advisor to the EU's top court said Wednesday.
The opinion issued by Yves Bot, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (CJEU), relates to the 2000 "Safe Harbor" agreement, which allows for the transfer of commercial data, including Facebook user data, from the EU to US companies that say they are in compliance with EU privacy laws. The Guardian adds: "The arrangement allows the NSA to use the PRISM surveillance system exposed by [NSA whistleblower Edward] Snowden to wade through billions of bits of personal data, communication and information held by nine internet companies."
The Irish Times sums up what Bot's opinion means:
To Facebook and other US companies collecting user data within the EU, the ruling was clear: you can either operate in Europe or you can collaborate with NSA surveillance, not both.
To the European Commission, an equally stark message: you are betraying the fundamental rights of EU citizens by continuing the "Safe Harbour" data sharing regime.
Reuters offers this background on the case:
The case stems from a complaint filed by 27-year-old Austrian law student Max Schrems against Facebook, alleging the company was helping the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) harvest email and other private data by forwarding European customer's data to servers in the United States.
Facebook rejects the claim that it provided the NSA with "backdoor" access to its servers and would wait for the full judgment, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
The Irish Data Protection Commissioner, who watches over major tech companies' compliance with privacy laws since they are headquartered in Ireland, rejected the complaint, saying such transfers were allowed under the Safe Harbour framework.
But the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after Schrems appealed.
"It is apparent from the findings of the High Court of Ireland and of the Commission itself that the law and practice of the United States allow the large-scale collection of the personal data of citizens of the EU which is transferred, without those citizens benefiting from effective judicial protection," the CJEU statement (pdf) reads.
"The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data," the statement adds.
"According to the Advocate General, that interference with fundamental rights is contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular because the surveillance carried out by the United States intelligence services is mass, indiscriminate surveillance," it reads.
It's not a binding opinion of the full Court; however, Bloomberg reports: "The EU court follows such advice in a majority of cases." And digital rights groups see that potential ruling as huge.
"If confirmed by the full Court, this is a very important step for the right to privacy in Europe," said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights, a Brussels-based coalition of privacy and civil rights organizations.
In an initial response to Bot's opinion, Schrems stated (pdf) that "it seems like years of work could pay off. Now we just have to hope that the judges of the Court of Justice will follow the advocate general's opinion in principle."
"What happens next is crucial," McNamee added. "It must never again happen... that obduracy from the Commission can keep agreements or laws in force that are patently illegal."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy