United States: Privacy Shield's Day After - What The 1980s Cola Wars And VHS-Betamax Tell Us About Our Data Security Future

Last Updated: August 16 2016
Article by Saad Gul and Michael E. Slipsky

Background

Every generation eventually reaches a point (some might call it "early middle age") where its formative years become the focus of widespread nostalgia. As indicated by the success of the recent Star Wars sequel and numerous current TV programs set in the 1980s—from a sitcom like The Goldbergs, to the Cold War thriller The Americans to the supernatural Stranger Things—2016 may be the year when the '80s finally emerged from the pop culture shadow of the '60s.

Children of the '80s will remember it as a time of high-profile struggles between competing brands and standards. Apple famously launched the Mac vs. PC war in a Super Bowl ad that virtually defined the genre. Likewise, Coke battled Pepsi in the seemingly never-ending cola wars, and VHS ultimately triumphed over Sony's Betamax in the videocassette wars. In keeping with the current '80s retro-fad, a similar battle appears to be unfolding between competing data privacy standards in the US and Europe. The outcome will impact every American company that deals with EU data.

The United States has traditionally taken a libertarian approach to data privacy: "what is not forbidden is permitted." Outside sensitive sectors such as health (HIPPA) and finance (GLBA), the United States was historically content to let the market police itself. The European approach, perhaps reflecting the trauma of 20th century totalitarian surveillance, is starkly different. There, data collection is permissible but much more tightly regulated.

Until recently, the United States and the EU reconciled these two divergent philosophies by a bilateral protocol known as Safe Harbor. Safe Harbor seemed to work well until 2015, when the European Court of Justice handed down the Schrems decision, holding that that Safe Harbor did not adequately safeguard personal data and therefore violated the EU's Data Protection Directive.

Schrems left American and EU negotiators scrambling to develop an alternative framework. The negotiators announced a preliminary agreement on the new framework called "Privacy Shield" in February 2016. After a comment period and some adjustments to accommodate the commenter's input, the European Commission approved Privacy Shield in July 2016.

Privacy Shield

The broad contours of the Privacy Shield proposal have been known for months. Briefly, the United States proposed a number of steps to address EU concerns including (1) the appointment of a Privacy Ombudsman as a single point of contact for European governments on privacy issues; (2) an official commitment from the U.S. government that EU citizens' data would not be subject to mass surveillance; (3) that bulk collection of data would be "targeted and focused"; and (4) that private companies operating under Privacy Shield would adhere to data retention requirements that mandate the destruction of data when no longer required for its authorized purpose.

Skeptics argue that Privacy Shield is fundamentally Safe Harbor with a better public relations team. For instance, the Article 29 Working Party – the advisory body on EU data privacy – complained that the Privacy Shield did not categorically bar massive and indiscriminate data collection. Maximillian Schrems, the plaintiff in the original Schrems decision, is reportedly considering another legal challenge.

Analysis of the Commission's final decision and adequacy determination does not support this view. The adequacy determination is a formal European Commission determination that the United States ensures an appropriate level of personal data protection via its legal and international commitments. The EU press release accompanying the final adequacy decision notes that the Privacy Shield framework addresses the concerns stated in the Schrems decision and the Commission's own November 2013 post-Snowden recommendations. The key changes concern those issues stressed by European Data Protection Authorities: bulk collection, an independent ombudsperson, and an explicit data retention principle.

Conceptually, the most critical development may be the expanded role of national Data Protection Authorities in monitoring the implementation of Privacy Shield. This ensures robust monitoring at multiple levels. At the government level, American commitments include:

  • Privacy Shield Principles: American companies handling EU data within the United States can make a legally enforceable commitment to adhere to EU-level standards regarding personal data.
  • Oversight: The Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission will coordinate enforcement with their European counterparts. Even before Privacy Shield adoption, the FTC leadership had stated that referrals from European regulators (which rely on special powers in addition to the FTC's Section 5 authority) remain an FTC enforcement priority. Privacy Shield will reinforce that.
  • Ombudsperson: Secretary of State Kerry agreed to set up an Ombudsperson office within the State Department. The office will handle EU queries and concerns regarding national security access. The currently designated Ombudsperson is the Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy & Environment. This Under Secretary's reporting chain does not include intelligence officials, ensuring a measure of independence from the U.S. intelligence community – a key EU demand. The Ombudsperson's charge is to address institutional complaints and verify that national security related-data collection practices conform to legal requirements and treaty obligations. The Ombudsperson will not, however, address personal concerns regarding surveillance with respect to particular individuals.
  • Safeguards: The Director of National Intelligence has documented the safeguards and limitations that apply to national security collection and law enforcement access to data.

Taken together, the European Union determined that these measures ensure an adequate level of data protection. It also referred to the passage of the USA Freedom Act (limiting bulk data collection) and Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD-28), which imposes restrictions on unfettered collection of personal data.

The EU determination means that, starting August 1, 2016, companies relying on Privacy Shield have been able to self-certify to the Commerce Department. This entails a public commitment to Privacy Shield compliance. The commitment will be enforceable under federal law. Since the FTC has pledged to increase enforcement action, the prudent certifying company will ensure that its privacy practices align with Privacy Shield benchmarks. A summary of the key provisions includes:

  • Information: A certifying company's privacy policy must include a declaration of Privacy Shield compliance, links to the Commerce Department's Privacy Shield website, and a mechanism to enable the user to contact the company resource that will investigate individual claims.
  • Free Dispute Resolution: The company must provide a free and independent recourse mechanism to investigate and resolve complaints. Complaints to an EU data protection authority (DPA) will trigger a Commerce Department review. The company also submits to binding arbitration if other dispute resolution mechanisms fail.
  • Cooperation: In the event of a Commerce Department query regarding Privacy Shield, the company commits to a prompt response. Certifying companies will be subject to periodic Commerce Department compliance audits.
  • Purpose Limitation: Certifying companies must limit personal information collection to the extent necessary for their business purposes. They also commit to data retention principles requiring destruction of data that is no longer required for those purposes.
  • Third Party Transfer: A company transferring personal information to a third party controller must comply with Notice and Choice Principles. The data may be transferred only for limited and specific purposes. The third party must be contractually obligated to provide the same level of protection as the company; if the third-party controller cannot adhere to this obligation, or operate within the limits of the individual's consent, it must inform the company and cease processing the transferred data.
  • Transparency: In the event the FTC or a court undertakes a Privacy Shield related assessment regarding a company, the company will make the resulting compliance reports available to the public.
  • Continuing Obligation: If a company leaves Privacy Shield, it must continue to annually certify its compliance while it retains data received under the program. The United States has agreed to monitor and update the list of Privacy Shield participants on an ongoing basis.

Conclusion

The technology sector remains the growth engine of the developed world. In 2013, the information technology and communications sector generated 22 percent of all new jobs in the OECD. One study found that Europe has produced 30 "unicorns", or technology companies worth over $1 billion in the new millennium; the United States has produced 39. Many, like Spotify or Uber, are familiar names.

Consequently, the only viable option for both sides is mutual accommodation. European and American politicians observe that while data privacy is a thorny issue, a world without Privacy Shield would see massive disruptions and inefficiencies. The contagion would not be limited to transatlantic transactions, but flow over to mainstream Europe itself. Privacy Shield has been crafted to accommodate this economic reality in a sufficiently robust framework to withstand the inevitable legal challenges.

For instance, since Schrems, the European Commission has been under a judicial mandate to consistently monitor data collection practices to determine whether the "adequacy" determination regarding U.S. data protection is still justified. To this end, the Commission made the adequacy determination contingent on periodic reviews by the Commerce Department and European DPAs. It also pledged to follow the reports of the U.S.'s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Though the Commission stresses that a suspension of the adequacy determination is on the table, in practical terms this would be the unthinkable nuclear option.

This brings us back to where we began: the computer, cola and video wars of the 1980s. The cola wars pertained to discrete products. So long as some consumers preferred one brand over the other, both could survive in the marketplace. The other "wars" pertained to standards. In those instances, the resulting network externalities led to last-one-standing outcomes. Betamax went the way of the dodo. As the Buggles famously sang, "Video Killed the Radio Star." Apple survived – barely –to fight another day (or decade). The data privacy issue concerns standards: namely, whether the U.S. or EU approach will govern. Since the U.S. approach can accommodate the EU approach, but not vice versa, game theory predicts that the EU approach will eventually prevail.

But the United States is unlikely to acquiesce to arrangements that would constitute a de facto continuous renegotiation of Privacy Shield, particularly if it is the only country singled out for such scrutiny. In addition, American privacy law has evolved considerably in the two decades between Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield. This evolution is almost always in the direction of increased regulation. Even absent a general right to privacy, federal law now protects sensitive health, genetic and financial information. Almost every state has a breach notification statute. Perhaps most importantly, federal and state regulators have become increasingly active and aggressive in cyber-enforcement.

Lord Ellenborough famously wrote: "Can the island of Tobago pass a law to bind the rights of the whole world? Would the world submit to such an assumed jurisdiction?" The EU cannot bind the world and the United States would not submit to such jurisdiction. Privacy Shield is best viewed as a hybrid accommodation: a voluntary framework that reconciles the most fundamental EU concerns with core American beliefs in the efficacy of a free market.

Ultimately, Privacy Shield is, as the EU has noted, an evolving mechanism. This is underlined by the limited shelf life of its current form. The EU General Data Protection Regulation is scheduled to go into effect in 2018. That will require additional attention, and likely additional changes, on the part of most companies. Regardless of what the next months bring, Privacy Shield will not be the last word on the subject of trans-Atlantic data privacy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Saad Gul
Michael E. Slipsky
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reed Smith
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reed Smith
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions