Articles

Privacy authorities remain concerned about the Privacy Shield

Privacy authorities remain concerned about the Privacy Shield

Privacy authorities remain concerned about the Privacy Shield

13.10.2016

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (“WP29”) remain concerned about the recently adopted Privacy Shield as follows from their recent statement dated 1 July 2016.

The WP29’s concerns are not new. The WP29 already expressed concerns with respect to the Privacy Shield before it was adopted. It did so on 13 April 2016 (in its Opinion 01/2016, the “Opinion”) addressing three major points:

  1. Once a data transfer to the US has been effectuated, the US entities do not have legal obligations similar to those that apply to EU entities to delete data if it is no longer necessary to keep these data for the purpose of which the data is collected.
  2. In the US, the continuous collection of massive and indiscriminate data is not fully excluded. Consequently, such data collection is an unjustified interference with the fundamental rights of individuals under EU privacy law.
  3. The WP29 raises concerns regarding the introduction of the US privacy ombudsperson mechanism and whether the US privacy ombudsperson has sufficient powers to provide for effective functioning.

Furthermore, as a more general concern, the WP29 considered that various points of the draft adequacy decision require further clarification, and the key data protection notions used in the Privacy Shield were not defined and applied in a consistent way.

Meanwhile, the Privacy Shield, including the changes that have been made to reflect – some of – the WP29 concerns, has entered into force on 12 July 2016. Privacy principles are further defined and clarified, and more clarity is provided about the transfer of personal data. Furthermore, the European privacy authorities are authorized from now on to deal with complaints about US national security authorities. If required, complaints can also be transferred to the US privacy ombudsperson via a new European complaint institution.

However, not all concerns of the WP29 that were recently addressed in the Opinion have been implemented in the Privacy Shield. This is the main reason why the WP29 reiterated certain concerns:

  • The Privacy Shield still does not contain specific rules on “automated decisions” (which are fullyautomated processing of personal data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to individuals, such as performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc.), and it also does not contain a general right to object to such automated decisions
  • No commitment is imposed on the US to not conduct mass and indiscriminate collection of personal data (as stated under 1 above).
  • The provisions of the Privacy Shield are unclear as to how they will apply to data processors in the US.
  • The exact powers and independence of the US privacy ombudsperson and whether such powers are sufficient for him or her to perform his or her tasks effectively remain unclear. And although during the negotiations regarding the Privacy Shield the US has indicated that the US privacy ombudsperson will objectively perform his or her tasks and will not be influenced in an inadmissible way, the current Privacy Shield does not impose any obligation or confirm formally the existence of an obligation in this respect.

In conclusion, the WP29 still finds there are several provisions in the Privacy Shield that require improvement. The first joint annual review of the Privacy Shield, which is expected to take place in May 2017, will therefore be a key moment for further assessment of the functioning and efficiency of the Privacy Shield.

The WP29 Opinion can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/ justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinionrecommendation/ files/2016/wp238_en.pdf 

Team

Related news

29.07.2020 NL law
Over temperaturen ten tijde van corona

Articles - Met haar standpunt ten aanzien van het meten van temperaturen van werknemers, geeft de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP) verduidelijking over de reikwijdte van haar toezicht. Deze nuancering houdt in dat, als er geen sprake is van verwerking van persoonsgegevens, de AVG niet geldt en de AP dus niet handhavend kan optreden.

Read more

03.07.2020 NL law
E-book NOW-2: Second Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure Work Retention

Articles - On 17 March 2020, the Dutch cabinet announced the first emergency package of support measures to alleviate the economic consequences of the corona crisis. This emergency package inter alia comprised the First Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure for the purpose of Work Retention (“NOW-1”) and the Temporary Bridging Measure for Self-Employed Persons (“Tozo-1”).

Read more

27.07.2020 NL law
Outsourcing laws and Regulation in the Netherlands – 2020

Articles - Are there any additional legal or regulatory requirements for outsourcing transactions undertaken by government or public sector bodies? What formalities are required to transfer, lease or license assets on an outsourcing transaction? Or, What are the most material legal or regulatory requirements and issues concerning data security and data protection that may arise on an outsourcing transaction?

Read more

03.07.2020 NL law
E-book NOW-2: Tweede tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid

Articles - Op 17 maart 2020 kondigde het kabinet het eerste noodpakket aan met steunmaatregelen om de economische gevolgen van de coronacrisis te dempen. Onderdeel van dit noodpakket zijn onder andere de Eerste tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid (“NOW-1”) en de Tijdelijke overbruggingsregeling zelfstandige ondernemers (“Tozo-1”).

Read more