Max Schrems is with him Organization Noyb Similar to the figurehead of European data security. Auster sued Facebook several times for manipulating his personal data and won the case. He was able to obtain two agreements between the United States and Europe, in which the handling of personal data was regulated, bypassed by the ECJ.
One contract was called a “safe port” and it was used from 2000 to 2015. The heir, known as the “Privacy Shield”, lasted only from 2016 to 2020. Schrems sued on both agreements for violating the Privacy Protection Agreement in force in Europe.
Almost data fair game for foreign citizens in the United States
In both cases there was a fundamental problem, and that applies US President Joe Biden and EU Commission President Ursula van der Leyne on a new deal as planned, Will be: There are mass surveillance laws in the United States that differentiate whether one is American or not, says Shrems in an interview with BR24. In definite terms, if you are an American, the data is somewhat protected, and if you are European, it is not.
Foreigners’ data can be valued in the United States for the national interest – a flexible creation, says Max Shremes. In addition, not even a single court has to agree to an assessment of the data. Authorities can undoubtedly x-ray foreigners.
For the average user, this should not be a problem. Journalists, political activists or some religious people, on the other hand, may soon be targeted by US officials. Then there’s “bye-c,” Shrems calls it. So: If I’ve been in contact with a person whose US services are suspicious, I will also be screened digitally.
Data exchange between the United States and the European Union is currently illegal
Although there are currently no data protection agreements, data is still exchanged with the United States. In some cases, this is entirely legal because the European Public Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has absolutely no exceptions to the necessary data traffic.
However, in most cases, it’s about outsourcing, Shrems says. This means that European companies send their data to US cloud services (such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud) because it is cheaper or more practical – but it is not required. According to Schrems, this data transmission is currently illegal and should not actually take place. Everyone involved will believe that things will go well and that they will not be prosecuted directly.
There is currently no escaping the dilemma
The European Commission and the US government want to find a way to create a legal basis for the exchange of data with the United States, which the economy wants. So what better way could Europe do in the third attempt at such an agreement with the United States? “The EU could not do any better because we are facing so much conflict in principle,” says Max Schrems, meaning that the legal systems on both sides of the Atlantic simply do not fit together.
The EU has a fundamental right to data protection and the United States has surveillance laws. In Europe, however, there does not appear to be a majority in favor of abolishing GDPR. Shrems says the Fiden government will not receive any legislation through Congress, and certainly not reform of surveillance laws – which is controversial even among American politicians. In this situation now both sides can not move towards each other.
“Now they’re trying to cut it with solutions that stick together like scotch tape.” Max Shremes
The result can only be a new temporary solution. So the data protection officer has already warmed up to the next round before the ECJ.
Legal action will also be taken against the new privacy shield
Max Schrems believes that a new regulation will inevitably be framed in a legally impure manner. However, the ECJ does not accept it. According to Schrems, there will be enough individuals to file a lawsuit against the new “Privacy Armor Agreement.” Schrems reports that a number of lawyers have written to him outraged by the EU Commission’s actions. There is no definitive text yet on what the new covenant will look like. Joe Biden and Ursula van der Leyen only accepted one kind of intent. Shrems expects fully formatted speech in the fall and reiterates his desire to appeal again to the ECJ.
“Amateur coffee fan. Travel guru. Subtly charming zombie maven. Incurable reader. Web fanatic.”