Posted in Transborder Data Flows

Opinion

Getting Practical and Thinking Ahead: “Interoperability” Is Gaining Momentum

In a world of disparate privacy regimes, pragmatic privacy professionals, experts and regulators have in recent years championed “interoperability” as the way forward for providing consistent privacy protections for global data flows. Of course, many in the privacy and data protection community continue to pursue the ideal of a global privacy standard and have made various recommendations to that effect over the years. Witness the recent “Resolution on anchoring data protection and the protection of privacy in international law” adopted by the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Warsaw, Poland, last September.

More from Markus Heyder

Opinion

Galileo’s Problem and How Legislation Won’t Stop the Orbit of Technology

Like the Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index of 1616, which outlawed the movement of the Earth around the sun, so too will the European Parliament restrict transborder data flows by legislative fiat this week.

Of course, the flow of data across borders will not cease or even diminish. Individuals will continue to carry iPhones on cross-Atlantic flights, “transferring data” (whatever that means) about their employers’ customers to “non-adequate” countries; and European individuals and businesses will access non-EU based websites and services, including banking, telecom, retail and cloud. Lawyers will be paid to produce paperwork, which bureaucrats will read; businesses continue to operate as before.

As Galileo said, “And yet it moves”.

More from Omer Tene

Opinion

The Impact of PRISM on International Data Flows

By Eduardo Ustaran, CIPP/E

An exasperatingly awkward challenge affecting the current data globalisation process is the prohibition on exports of data that is present in a number of the world’s data privacy laws.  This is something that European organisations have had to live with since the mid-90s, and frustratingly, the trend is being extended to other jurisdictions. Disregarding the reality of Internet and mobile communications, some policy-makers and regulators insist on building some sort of physical or at least digital fortress around the data within their jurisdiction with the aim of preventing unwanted interferences. In the most extreme cases, international data flows are only allowed under the express authorisation of a national regulator that will seek to scrutinise the safeguards in place to the finest detail.

More from Eduardo Ustaran

From the Toolbelt

The ABCs of BCRs

By K Royal, CIPP/US, CIPP/E

Prior to commencing my employment in 2012, my employer decided to enhance their data protection program with the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor certification, but then the European Commission published new privacy reforms. Upon hire, my primary directive was to decide between Safe Harbor and Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs).

More from K Royal

Opinion

Where Is the Regulation of Transborder Data Flows Headed?

Anyone working in privacy and data protection law is familiar with the restrictions on transferring data outside the European Union contained in the EU Data Protection Directive. But did you know that non-EU countries as diverse as Israel, Mexico, Russia and South Korea have similar restrictions? And that since the 1970s, over 70 countries all over the world have enacted data protection and privacy laws regulating transborder data flows?

The regulation of data flows across national and regional borders under the data privacy laws of dozens of countries and international and regional regulatory instruments is the topic of my new book entitled Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law, which will be published in May by Oxford University Press. European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx was kind enough to write a foreword to the book.

The subject is too complex to discuss in detail here, but I can share the gist of some of my conclusions.

More from Christopher Kuner

opinion

Trade Law and Privacy Law Come Together

I think it is cool that at my law firm, Hogan Lovells, we have a former Ambassador from the EU to the U.S. and a former U.S. Trade Representative; but in my years at the firm, I never have had a chance to do any work with them.

Likewise, I work just down the hall from lawyers in our international trade group, and up to now, my interactions with them in my role as a leader of our Privacy and Information Management practice have been mostly social.

More from Christopher Wolf