Safe Harbor: Why EU data needs 'protecting' from US law

By | April 25, 2011, 2:00pm PDT

Summary: ZDNet’s USA PATRIOT Act series: An overview of the Safe Harbour principles, which allows data to flow freely between Europe and the US; but not without caution.

This is the second in a series of posts that examine the principles governing the transfer of data across borders between the European Union and the United States, and the effect that the USA PATRIOT Act has on businesses, citizens and governments outside the United States. Although this is a U.S.-oriented site and I am a British citizen, the issues I surface here affect all readers, whether living and working inside or outside the United States.

Why were the Safe Harbor principles created in the first place? To maintain trade between Europe and the United States, with Europe fully aware of the lax attempts at data privacy performed on the part of the U.S.’s biggest companies.

Why Europe needed Safe Harbor principles

The vast majority of people using services on the web — be it web-based email like Hotmail or Yahoo!, social networks like Facebook and Twitter, or anything as minute as a website requiring registration– tend not to think about where their personal data like photos and email is stored.

On the whole, these services are designed to save us time and energy, and we have come to want the offerings of these services on-demand, without thinking too much about privacy. We expect our respective governments, wherever we are in the world, to protect us to a level where we can act and communicate freely.

However, an inequality in legal protection between the United States and the European Union could have massive consequences for users of ‘the cloud’.

Data protection legislation differs greatly between the European Union and the United States. With a vast number of organisations branching out to worldwide offices during the dot-com boom, it was clear to legislators that data transfer and protection laws needed a global overhaul. A particular area of focus for data legislation was the European Union, with dozens of countries sharing elements of the same law.

Member states of the European Economic Area (EEA), a community of European countries, acknowledge the “four freedoms” of data protection. This allows the freedom of goods and citizens across European borders and grants data to take advantage of these same privileges.

The EU ratified the “Data Protection Directive” in 1995, which mandated that all current and future EEA member states incorporate agreed-by-consensus rules into their own respective laws by the end of 1998. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Data Protection Act 1984 already existed but was amended to accommodate the new provisions of the EU directive. The renewed law became the present incarnation of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The core principles of the directive took into account data usage transparency and the legitimate use of data, seeking to ensure that only the required personal data was collected by companies. But these principles also allow for data only to be processed if a series of conditions are met to ensure the data is stored securely and safely, and if the person owning the data belongs to or relates to accept that these terms are met.

Implementing and regulating the Safe Harbour »

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

15
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Safe Harbor: Why EU data needs 'protecting' from US law
chris@... 17th Jan
@TAPhilo If the data relates to identifiable persons then the law would apply to that data also. I know this because I have worked for a UK company with a US subsidary and on inspection by the Data registra I was told that while data resides on our servers here in the UK, that data has the same protections as that relating to EU citizens (must be used fairly, for the purposes it was collected for only, accurate etc, etc).
0 Votes
+ -
simple solution
Linux Geek Updated - 25th Apr
EU should follow all the US laws when dealing with the internet.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@Linux Geek Considering the EU has far stronger privacy policies and data protection rights, why should we downgrade? Why shouldn't the US, as a leader on the world stage, upgrade to Europe's standards?

The EU has over 500 million people, the US has just over 300 million -- there are more people subscribing to the EU data protection directive, so surely it'd make more sense to secure data even further and have the US on board?
@zwhittaker

WHile you are right that the US has almost no privacy protections, the reality is that EU laws are all paper, no effect. Working in Italy and Germany, I saw that there were so many dodges around privacy laws it was laughable. Local companies made a little effort to comply, while multinationals routinely gamed the regulations to make them meaningless. And there are some "consultants" who make a good living at it, just like tax lawyers help US citizens dodge the IRS.

As long as companies treat data as having value and private citizens treat as though it has none, then all the laws on the books don't help one whit.
@zwhittaker But could both countries agree on the basic foundations of each other's rights? texas real estate attorney
@Linux Geek

You have, perhaps, some logical reason for saying that?
@Linux Geek Why would any one want to follow american law, seems like your in to the americanisation of the world, stuff that.
We have different laws for a reason and thats not so the US can tell us to change. GET OVER YOURSELF
What about the reverse scenario: what about US (or others) having their data stored in an EU data center - what does it take for any EU nation to look at that data?
The US data protection laws are mainly concered with keeping GOVERNMENTS from looking at your data and not private companies from collecting and using it? How does that compare to the EU laws primary mission?
0 Votes
+ -
how can you say the US Data protection laws protect against governments accessing anything, when the government says 'national security', and suddenly has access to everything?

the EU laws aim at protecting the consumers from others. Period. Not just outside governments, not just outside businesses, not just other consumers. The US protects against governments (not the US government), while EU aims to protect against all.
@TAPhilo If the data relates to identifiable persons then the law would apply to that data also. I know this because I have worked for a UK company with a US subsidary and on inspection by the Data registra I was told that while data resides on our servers here in the UK, that data has the same protections as that relating to EU citizens (must be used fairly, for the purposes it was collected for only, accurate etc, etc).
@shryko
EU governments reserve the right to do anything they like in the interests of law enforcement or any other aspect of national security - as any government has to. The responsibility for preserving the rights of citizens effectively confers the right to do whatever is necessary, including lesser evils, to safeguard those rights for the population as a whole. To argue otherwise is to undermine the effectiveness of those rights.
And that is why democracy and freedom to publish the misdeeds of government are logical necessities too.
@PassingWind EU governments cannot do "anything they like" in the interests of law enforcement - not even for "national security". To take one obvious example, a government which uses torture has broken the law, and is subject to sanctions if that breach is proved.

In the UK, we have anti-discrimination laws. If the government decided that all Muslims had to be in their homes from 9pm to 7.30am, "in the interests of preventing terrorism," then they would similarly be breaking the law, and could be ordered to stop.

Could the US government declare that "in the interests of law enforcement" it required all private citizens to hand in any firearms they owned to the nearest police station inside 48 hours? It would, of course, be safeguarding the freedom not to get shot at for the rest of the population.
0 Votes
+ -
@PassingWind
PMPsicle 27th Apr
Just to correct a misunderstanding ...

One of the basic principles of the original EU privacy agreement is that all countries must have judicial oversight before violating privacy. Which is why the UK was forced to revise its wiretap laws and data search and seizure laws (as mentioned previously) in order to enhance the oversight. All EU governments have as a minimum a level of judicial and legislative oversight for their wiretap and data seizure laws.

While the UK, Canada and many other governments have enacted national security laws they all require observance of the judicial oversight. In fact, the EU governments have NOT reserved the right to do anything they like -- for any reason. As in any government by the rule of law the government must obey it's own laws. Those include numerous laws restricting their rights. The Magna Carta being one of the most famous examples.

This is the main difference -- The Patriot Act does not require a court order to seize data or otherwise deprive others of a basic right.

As for governments having the right to do whatever is necessary to preserve the rights of its citizens ... I leave you with the words of three of those who wrote your own constitution.

President Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

And Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And finally, President James Madison said "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."
@PMPsicle
and we have only to look at the Arab nations - this generation once described as the least politicised - where people have got fed up with "stability" and decided "freedom" is more important.
It's interesting that most democracies spend their time getting richer, not invading other countries. Democracy should be supported and encouraged.
Australia's compliance to USA's copyright laws meant much damage to our English-colonial legal structures, to our financial & legal costs & for USA's benefits.
USA's wars on "terrorism" (Australia's David Hicks, and now our Wikileaks spokesman) is discrediting the most hated nation on the planet. Our nominee for the Nobel Peace prize (2011, 2012) must stay hidden in Europe, preferablly Sweden - sometimes.
As many have commented, laws & regulations have little to do with reality. USA's manipulation of Google (Gmail), Paypal & most banking systems on this planet, most national & international government agencies, ... - is seemingly unending.
Personally, I'm hoping that the financial supporters of the USA (Japan, China, ... ) would withdraw their investments in Darth Vader, and give to the much more advanced & truly free world.
As the aspiring next president (Donald Trump) of Darth Vader is saying, a black man not born on mainland USA is not worthy of USA work.
@gregzeng@...

Donald Trump never said that, your entire comment is filled with typical anti American hate, lies, and misrepresentations.

It's people like you who are the true threat to all freedoms everywhere, the political liars, and propagandists, you cloak hate speech in a cover of perceived intelligent commentary; spreading lies by saying things that do nothing more than SOUND GOOD, but only to those who deep inside want to believe your garbage in the first place.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources