How Both the Eu and the U.S. Are "Stricter" Than Each Other for the Privacy of Government Requests for Information

Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo
{"title":"How Both the Eu and the U.S. Are \"Stricter\" Than Each Other for the Privacy of Government Requests for Information","authors":"Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2920748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Law enforcement access to personal data presents a paradox at the heart of debates between the European Union (EU) and the United States about privacy protections. On the one hand, the comprehensive privacy regime in the EU contains many requirements that do not apply in the United States-the EU is \"stricter\" than the United States in applying requirements that do not exist in the latter. On the other hand, the United States also sets requirements that do not exist in the EU, such as the Fourth Amendment requirement that a warrant be signed by a judge upon a finding of probable cause. Thus, both are stricter in important ways when setting standards for law enforcement access to personal data. The fact that both sides are stricter in significant respects is important to two distinct topics: how to reform the system of Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA), and whether the United States provides \"adequate\" protection for personal data under EU law, and thus is an appropriate destination for data flows from the EU.The relative strictness of standards for law enforcement access is central to understanding current obstacles to reforming the MLA system, the mechanism for sharing law enforcement evidence held in one country for use in criminal investigations in a different country. Our research team has been writing a series of articles about MLA reform.1 The topic has become increasingly important in recent years-globalized communications mean that e-mails, social network data, and other evidence for criminal investigations are often held in a different country. In the course of studying obstacles to effective reform, we have come to believe that the fact that both the EU and the United States provide stricter privacy protections is salient but little understood-each side is reluctant to compromise on a new approach to the extent that there would be a weakening of some specific safeguards that currently exist in their respective jurisdictions. We hope that a fuller understanding of the relative strictness of both sides will enable a more fruitful discussion of possible paths to MLA reform.The relative strictness of both the EU and the United States is also important to a second topic, the current litigation and debates about whether the United States provides \"adequate\" protection of privacy, and thus is a lawful destination for flows of personal data from the EU.2 Under the EU Data Protection Directive, which went into effect in 1998,3 transfers of personal data from EU Member States to other countries, such as the United States, are generally permitted only if the recipient jurisdiction has \"adequate\" protections.4 From its negotiation in 2000 until 2015, a major legal basis for such transfers was the EU/U.S. Safe Harbor, under which participating companies could lawfully send personal data to the United States.5 In 2015, the European Court of Justice struck down the Safe Harbor for lacking adequacy in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner.6 A related transfer mechanism, the standard contract clause, is now facing a similar legal challenge in Ireland, and the Irish Data Protection Commissioner has preliminarily found the challenge to be \"well founded.\"7 In addition, the EU has recently approved two instruments that will go into full effect in 2018 and strengthen existing privacy protections: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),8 which applies predominantly to private-sector processing of personal information, and a new Police and Criminal Justice Directive that governs law enforcement access to personal data.9 Both the GDPR and law enforcement directive have similar \"adequacy\" requirements for transfers of personal data.10 An accurate assessment of the adequacy of U.S. law enforcement access to information is thus vital to multiple aspects of current EU data protection law.Part I of this Article provides background for both MLA reform and the current adequacy debates. Part II highlights ways that the EU's comprehensive data protection regime creates privacy protections, including for law enforcement access, that are stricter than those applied to the United States. …","PeriodicalId":81162,"journal":{"name":"Emory law journal","volume":"66 1","pages":"617"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emory law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2920748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Law enforcement access to personal data presents a paradox at the heart of debates between the European Union (EU) and the United States about privacy protections. On the one hand, the comprehensive privacy regime in the EU contains many requirements that do not apply in the United States-the EU is "stricter" than the United States in applying requirements that do not exist in the latter. On the other hand, the United States also sets requirements that do not exist in the EU, such as the Fourth Amendment requirement that a warrant be signed by a judge upon a finding of probable cause. Thus, both are stricter in important ways when setting standards for law enforcement access to personal data. The fact that both sides are stricter in significant respects is important to two distinct topics: how to reform the system of Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA), and whether the United States provides "adequate" protection for personal data under EU law, and thus is an appropriate destination for data flows from the EU.The relative strictness of standards for law enforcement access is central to understanding current obstacles to reforming the MLA system, the mechanism for sharing law enforcement evidence held in one country for use in criminal investigations in a different country. Our research team has been writing a series of articles about MLA reform.1 The topic has become increasingly important in recent years-globalized communications mean that e-mails, social network data, and other evidence for criminal investigations are often held in a different country. In the course of studying obstacles to effective reform, we have come to believe that the fact that both the EU and the United States provide stricter privacy protections is salient but little understood-each side is reluctant to compromise on a new approach to the extent that there would be a weakening of some specific safeguards that currently exist in their respective jurisdictions. We hope that a fuller understanding of the relative strictness of both sides will enable a more fruitful discussion of possible paths to MLA reform.The relative strictness of both the EU and the United States is also important to a second topic, the current litigation and debates about whether the United States provides "adequate" protection of privacy, and thus is a lawful destination for flows of personal data from the EU.2 Under the EU Data Protection Directive, which went into effect in 1998,3 transfers of personal data from EU Member States to other countries, such as the United States, are generally permitted only if the recipient jurisdiction has "adequate" protections.4 From its negotiation in 2000 until 2015, a major legal basis for such transfers was the EU/U.S. Safe Harbor, under which participating companies could lawfully send personal data to the United States.5 In 2015, the European Court of Justice struck down the Safe Harbor for lacking adequacy in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner.6 A related transfer mechanism, the standard contract clause, is now facing a similar legal challenge in Ireland, and the Irish Data Protection Commissioner has preliminarily found the challenge to be "well founded."7 In addition, the EU has recently approved two instruments that will go into full effect in 2018 and strengthen existing privacy protections: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),8 which applies predominantly to private-sector processing of personal information, and a new Police and Criminal Justice Directive that governs law enforcement access to personal data.9 Both the GDPR and law enforcement directive have similar "adequacy" requirements for transfers of personal data.10 An accurate assessment of the adequacy of U.S. law enforcement access to information is thus vital to multiple aspects of current EU data protection law.Part I of this Article provides background for both MLA reform and the current adequacy debates. Part II highlights ways that the EU's comprehensive data protection regime creates privacy protections, including for law enforcement access, that are stricter than those applied to the United States. …
欧盟和美国如何在政府信息请求隐私方面比对方“更严格”
在欧盟(EU)和美国关于隐私保护的辩论中,执法部门对个人数据的访问呈现出一个悖论。一方面,欧盟的全面隐私制度包含了许多在美国不适用的要求——在适用美国不存在的要求方面,欧盟比美国“更严格”。另一方面,美国也制定了欧盟不存在的要求,例如第四修正案要求法官在发现合理原因后签署搜查令。因此,在制定执法部门获取个人数据的标准时,两者在重要方面都更为严格。双方在重要方面都更加严格,这一事实对两个截然不同的主题很重要:如何改革司法互助体系(MLA),以及美国是否根据欧盟法律为个人数据提供“充分”保护,从而成为来自欧盟的数据流的合适目的地。执法部门获取证据的标准相对严格,这对于理解目前改革MLA制度的障碍至关重要。MLA制度是一种分享在一个国家掌握的执法证据,以便在另一个国家进行刑事调查的机制。我们的研究小组一直在写一系列关于MLA改革的文章近年来,这个话题变得越来越重要——全球化的通信意味着电子邮件、社交网络数据和其他刑事调查证据往往存放在另一个国家。在研究有效改革的障碍的过程中,我们开始相信,欧盟和美国都提供了更严格的隐私保护这一事实是显而易见的,但却鲜为人知——双方都不愿在新方法上妥协,以至于削弱了各自管辖范围内现有的一些具体保障措施。我们希望,在更充分地了解双方相对严格的情况下,能够更富有成效地讨论立法改革的可能途径。欧盟和美国的相对严格对第二个主题也很重要,即当前关于美国是否提供“充分”隐私保护的诉讼和辩论,因此是欧盟个人数据流动的合法目的地。根据1998年生效的欧盟数据保护指令,个人数据从欧盟成员国转移到其他国家,如美国。通常只有在接收司法管辖区有“充分”保护的情况下才允许从2000年的谈判到2015年,此类转让的主要法律依据是欧盟/美国5 2015年,在Schrems诉数据保护专员一案中,欧洲法院以“安全港法案”的充分性不足为由,驳回了该法案。6一个相关的传输机制——标准合同条款,目前在爱尔兰也面临着类似的法律挑战,爱尔兰数据保护专员初步认为这一挑战“有充分根据”。7此外,欧盟最近批准了两项将于2018年全面生效并加强现有隐私保护的文书:《一般数据保护条例》(GDPR),8主要适用于私营部门对个人信息的处理,以及一项新的警察和刑事司法指令,该指令管理执法部门对个人数据的访问GDPR和执法指令对个人数据的传输都有类似的“充分性”要求因此,准确评估美国执法部门获取信息的充分性,对于当前欧盟数据保护法的多个方面至关重要。本文的第一部分提供了MLA改革和当前适当性辩论的背景。第二部分强调了欧盟全面的数据保护制度创造隐私保护的方式,包括执法访问,比适用于美国的更严格。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信