Privacy Shield agreement between EU and US is under increasing pressure

The Privacy Shield agreement, which replaces the Safe Harbor arrangement, is under increasing pressure. European privacy regulator Giovanni Buttarelli, for example, ruled that strong improvements are needed if the deal is to stand in front of a judge.

In a statement, Buttarelli said it is time to find a longer-term solution for storing personal data in the US. He says this in view of the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation, which was adopted in April and will come into effect in May 2018. He underlines the findings of the Article 29 Working Group, which identified a number of serious flaws in the agreement in April.

For example, there must be adequate protection against the bulk collection of data from European citizens and there must be possibilities for supervision, transparency and the enforcement of rights by citizens. The European Parliament is also not satisfied with the state of the Privacy Shield, according to Politico. Last week, parliament drafted a non-binding resolution stating that the agreement in its current state violates the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ability to collect data in bulk was also an obstacle.

The European Commission has not yet proposed a final version of the agreement. Initially that was supposed to happen this month, but it has now been postponed until sometime in the summer. If the Commission does not heed the mounting criticism, there is a good chance that the agreement will be declared invalid in court, as was the case with the previous Safe Harbor arrangement. Max Schrems, who then filed the lawsuit, told Politico that as long as US surveillance laws apply to companies, the legal basis of the agreement can be declared invalid by a judge.

In the meantime, companies use, among other things, model contracts to store data in the US. But this way is also under pressure, writes Politico. Last week, the Irish privacy regulator stated that Facebook is unlawfully using this option, because the standard clauses in the model contracts would be in violation of the charter. Citizens would not be able to go to court if the US government misuses their data.