Austrian data privacy activist Max Schrems
The most recent data deal between the EU and the USA is being challenged in court by Austrian attorney and activist Max Schrems in an effort to overturn it. Schrems told the "Welt" that he anticipates the case would be heard by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) at the start of the next year.
"We already have a number of legal options available." Recent approval of the "Data Privacy Framework" by the EU Commission in Brussels allows for the unfettered movement of personal data across the Atlantic.
This agreement's two predecessors, the "Privacy Shield" and "Safe Harbor" agreements, had both been challenged by Schrems and found to be unenforceable by the ECJ. For the length of the hearings, the judges might halt the new data deal between Brussels and Washington.
Then an issue would arise for the American tech companies. They keep hammering home the point that conducting business in the EU is only profitable if they are permitted to handle data from American Internet users. Facebook had vowed to depart Europe if it could no longer transmit data back home. The European Court of Justice originally invalidated "Safe Harbor" in 2015, and its replacement "Privacy Shield" in 2020.
The courts concluded that the agreements did not sufficiently secure Europeans' data. The ECJ condemned the US secret services' ability to bulk-skim material without raising any red flags. In the third agreement, Brussels has endorsed "adequate" data protection in the US. In other words, the level of protection is in line with European requirements.
In accordance with the Commission, US intelligence agencies may only reasonably necessary and proportionately intercept information from EU persons.
Schrems disagrees, though. He believes that too much data about Europeans is still accessible to US secret agencies. They didn't need any proof of suspicion or legal authorization to continue spying on citizens in Germany, Austria, and other EU nations.
Schrems asserts that America will interpret "proportionate" differently from the ECJ.
Source: FUNDSCENE