17-10-2015, 19:56 #1
[EN] Behind the European Privacy Ruling That’s Confounding Silicon ValleyOn Tuesday, when Max Schrems won a landmark privacy case in the European Court of Justice, Edward J. Snowden told him on Twitter that he had “changed the world for the better.” Penny Pritzker, the United States commerce secretary, had a different opinion, saying the decision “puts at risk the thriving trans-Atlantic digital economy.”
The decision invalidated the so-called safe harbor agreement under which more than 4,000 American companies, including Google and Facebook, were handling the personal data of European consumers. Those companies can find other ways to transfer this information legally, but the court’s decision seems to empower the national regulators in each of the 28 European Union countries to investigate whether data transferred to the United States is protected adequately. And some of those regulators have a dim view of Silicon Valley’s attitude toward privacy.
Mr. Schrems’s legal campaign against Facebook began when he was a 24-year-old student studying at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California. Over the course of the semester, a couple of lawyers from Silicon Valley technology companies came to speak to his privacy class, and Mr. Schrems was taken aback to hear them say they didn’t take Europe’s strict privacy laws very seriously, since companies rarely faced significant penalties for breaking them.
At the time, Mr. Schrems was looking for a topic for a paper. “I had to write about something,” he said recently. So he decided to look at how Facebook deals with European data protection laws.
21-10-2015, 12:49 #2
The collapse of the US-EU Safe Harbor
Posted October 20, 2015 by Brad Smith - President and Chief Legal Officer
When people who care about technology look back at the year 2015, they will remember October as the month when the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor collapsed. An international legal agreement that has been in place for 15 years was invalidated in a single day. On Oct. 6, the Court of Justice of the European Union struck down an international legal regime that over 4,000 companies have been relying upon not just to move data across the Atlantic, but to do business and serve consumers on two continents with over 800 million people.
Artigo completo: http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-is...y-rubiks-cube/
21-10-2015, 12:51 #3
US hosters to lose out in post-Safe Harbor fallout?
October 21, 2015 By Den Howlett
Customers are already looking at a run for the European hills in the wake of Safe Harbor’s demise. How much is at stake?
Artigo completo: http://diginomica.com/2015/10/21/us-...harbor-fallout
23-10-2015, 09:23 #4
Senate bill: Immunity for companies for sharing intel that violates privacy policiesA long-delayed bill that would make it easier for corporations to share information about cyber attacks with each other or the government without fear of lawsuits advanced in the U.S. Senate on Thursday with support from members of both parties and the White House.
Dozens of industry and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, back the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), saying it would help encourage companies and the government to share information that might help thwart high-profile cyber attacks.
But many privacy activists and a few lawmakers, including Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, vehemently oppose it. Several big tech companies also have come out against the measure, arguing that it fails to protect user privacy and does too little to prevent cyber attacks.
"The bill would grant legal immunity to companies who in sharing information actually violate your privacy," Paul said in the Senate shortly after a procedural vote of 83 to 14, well above the 60 "yes" votes needed to move ahead.
The Senate began debating amendments to the measure, which is on track to pass next week.
The House of Representatives passed its version of CISA in April with strong support from Republicans and Democrats.
Any version of CISA passed by the Senate would have to be reconciled with the House bill before it could be sent to the White House for President Barack Obama to sign into law.
The White House said in a statement that it supports the bill but wants the Department of Homeland Security to be charged with running the information-sharing system, and would "strongly oppose" any amendments to the bill to expand exceptions.
The White House also said it is concerned about provisions that would authorize "certain potentially disruptive defensive measures" to hacking attacks, measures that could hurt foreign policy and raise legal issues.
"The administration is committed to continue working with stakeholders to address remaining concerns," the White House said.
(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton in Washington and Joe Menn in San Francisco; Editing by Grant McCool and Steve Orlofsky)
30-10-2015, 22:54 #5
UK police to be granted powers to view Web browsing history of everyone in the countr
Bill would make it a legal requirement for communications companies to retain all the Web browsing history of customers for 12 months in case the spy agencies or police need to access them
By Nicola Harley
12:15AM GMT 30 Oct 2015
Police are to get the power to view the web browsing history of everyone in the country.
Home Secretary Theresa May will announce the plans when she introduces the Government's new surveillance bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
The Telegraph understands the new powers for the police will form part of the new bill.
It would make it a legal requirement for communications companies to retain all the web browsing history of customers for 12 months in case the spy agencies or police need to access them.
Police would be able to access specific web addresses visited by customers.
The new powers would allow the police to seize details of the website and searches being made by people they wanted to investigate.
They will still need to apply for judicial approval to be able to access the content of the websites.
Mrs May previously told the Commons enforcement agencies needed more powers to do their jobs effectively.
“I've said many times before that it is not possible to debate the balance between privacy and security, including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers and the oversight arrangements that govern them without also considering the threats that we face as a country," she told MPs.
"Those threats remain considerable and they are evolving.
"They include not just terrorism from overseas and home-grown in the UK, but also industrial, military and state espionage.
"They include not just organised criminality, but also the proliferation of once physical crimes online, such as child sexual exploitation. And the technological challenges that that brings.
"In the face of such threats we have a duty to ensure that the agencies whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers they need to do the job."
David Davis MP told The Times there is "no proven need" to retain the data for a year.
Previous plans to introduce the measure in the so-called snooper's charter in 2013 were blocked by the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition.
Writing in the Telegraph previously, former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg warned that Britain would be “setting a worrying international precedent” if plans for the massive database of people’s internet and phone usage went ahead.
The Security Service, along with MI6 and GCHQ, has previously warned MPs that the ability to combat terrorism would be severely hampered without the powers.
Under the plans, telecoms and Internet service providers would be paid to log their customers’ emails, Internet use and other correspondence so it could be easily searched by security officials.
Data would be held for 12 months and access granted to the police, the National Crime Agency, the intelligence agencies and HM Revenue and Customs.
Previously a poll by YouGov for Big Brother Watch found almost three-quarters of people did not trust that the data would be kept secure.
It comes as David Cameron, the Prime Minister, announced moves to strengthen its treaty with America to ensure Internet companies based there hand over requested data on suspects.
Some of the largest companies have been increasingly reluctant to supply customer communications in the wake of the claims of mass surveillance programmes by former CIA contractor Edward Snowden.
Última edição por 5ms; 30-10-2015 às 22:57.