Live. Die. Repeat. The ‘Privacy Shield’ Bargain Every 2D ‘Groundhog Day’: Endlessly Making The Same Mistakes?

Steve Peers

Love it, abhor it, or pass an academic career analysing it, the USA is the best-known province inwards the world. Yet unopen to of its traditions nevertheless puzzle outsiders. One of them, celebrated yesterday, is ‘Groundhog Day’: the myth that the appearance, or non-appearance, of the shadow of an otherwise obscure rodent on Feb 2d each twelvemonth volition elevate one's hear whether or non at that spot volition endure unopen to other vi weeks of winter. Outside the USA, Groundhog Day is belike amend known every bit a movie: grumpy Bill Murray keeps repeating the same day, trying to perfect it in addition to woo the lovely Andie MacDowell. Others accept borrowed this basic plot. In Edge of Tomorrow, sleazy Tom Cruise keeps repeating the same day, trying to kill aliens in addition to woo the lovely Emily Blunt. In the Doctor Who episode Hell Bent, angry Peter Capaldi keeps repeating the same day, trying to cutting through a diamond wall in addition to resurrect the lovely Jenna Coleman.

The basic thought is summed upwardly inwards the advertising slogan for Edge of Tomorrow: Live. Die. Repeat. Groundhog Day inwards exceptional has attracted many interpretations. Of these, the most convincing is that the film’s flush is a Buddhist parable: repeated reincarnation until nosotros accomplish the province of enlightenment, or nirvana.

How does this relate to the novel EU/US privacy deal, dubbed ‘Privacy Shield’? Obviously the bargain involves the USA, in addition to it was reached yesterday, on Groundhog Day. And it’s a novel incarnation of a prior deal: ‘Safe Harbor’, killed final Oct past times the CJEU inwards the Schrems judgment (discussed here). While the text of the novel understanding is non yet available, the initial indication is that it is jump to endure killed inwards plough – unless the CJEU, admittedly an increasingly fickle judicial deity, is willing to larn dorsum on its ain example law. Goodness knows how many farther reincarnations volition endure necessary earlier the U.S.A. of America in addition to European Union tin give the sack accomplish enlightenment.

Problems amongst the bargain

The betoken of the novel bargain is the same every bit the old one: to supply a legally secure gear upwardly of rules for EU/US information transfers, for companies that subscribe to a gear upwardly of information protection principles. Failing that, it is possible to debate that transfers tin give the sack endure justified past times binding corporate rules, past times private consent or (as regards U.S.A. of America authorities access to the data) past times a 3rd State’s world interest. But every bit I every bit I noted inwards my spider web log postal service on Schrems, these alternatives are untested yet inwards the CJEU, in addition to are maybe land of written report to legal challenges of their own. Understandably, businesses would similar to brand a smoothen transition to a novel gear upwardly of legally secure rules. Does the novel bargain check the bill?   

In the absence of a text, I can’t analyse the novel bargain much. But hither are my commencement impressions.

According to the CJEU, the principal problems amongst the previous bargain were twofold: the extent of volume surveillance inwards the USA, in addition to the express judicial redress available to European Union citizens every bit regards such authorities surveillance. It appears that the novel understanding volition address the latter issue, but non the former. There volition endure an ‘ombudsman’ empowered to consider complaints against the U.S.A. of America government. While the details are unknown, it’s difficult to come across how this novel establishment could address the CJEU’s concerns completely, unless it is given the judicial ability to gild the blocking in addition to erasure of data, for instance.   

Furthermore, there’s no sign that the underlying volume surveillance volition endure changed. Here, the declaration is that the Court of Justice exactly misunderstood the U.S.A. of America system, or that inwards whatever consequence many European Union countries are exactly every bit wicked every bit the USA when it comes to volume surveillance. These arguments are eloquently gear upwardly out inwards a barrister’s opinion, summarised inwards this (paywalled) Financial Times story.

Facebook in addition to the U.S.A. of America authorities disdained to larn involved inwards the Schrems case, in addition to accept no doubtfulness repented this at leisure. The supposition hither appears to endure that they would participate fully inwards novel litigation, in addition to convince the CJEU to come across the fault of its ways.

How probable is this? It’s undoubtedly truthful to say that the CJEU gives an increasing impression that it willing to curvature the rules, or double upwardly on its ain example law, inwards gild to ensure the survival of an increasingly beleaguered European Union project. In many interpretations. Of these, the most convincing is that the film’s flush is a Buddhist parable: repeated reincarnation until nosotros accomplish the province of enlightenment, or nirvana.

How does this relate to the novel EU/US privacy deal, dubbed ‘Privacy Shield’? Obviously the bargain involves the USA, in addition to it was reached yesterday, on Groundhog Day. And it’s a novel incarnation of a prior deal: ‘Safe Harbor’, killed final Oct past times the CJEU inwards the Schrems judgment (discussed Gauweiler, it agreed amongst harshly criticized plans to run on monetary wedlock afloat. In many interpretations. Of these, the most convincing is that the film’s flush is a Buddhist parable: repeated reincarnation until nosotros accomplish the province of enlightenment, or nirvana.

How does this relate to the novel EU/US privacy deal, dubbed ‘Privacy Shield’? Obviously the bargain involves the USA, in addition to it was reached yesterday, on Groundhog Day. And it’s a novel incarnation of a prior deal: ‘Safe Harbor’, killed final Oct past times the CJEU inwards the Schrems judgment (discussed Dano in addition to many interpretations. Of these, the most convincing is that the film’s flush is a Buddhist parable: repeated reincarnation until nosotros accomplish the province of enlightenment, or nirvana.

How does this relate to the novel EU/US privacy deal, dubbed ‘Privacy Shield’? Obviously the bargain involves the USA, in addition to it was reached yesterday, on Groundhog Day. And it’s a novel incarnation of a prior deal: ‘Safe Harbor’, killed final Oct past times the CJEU inwards the Schrems judgment (discussed Alimanovic, it qualified its prior example police line on European Union citizens’ access to benefits, inwards an endeavour to quell growing world concern virtually this issue. In many interpretations. Of these, the most convincing is that the film’s flush is a Buddhist parable: repeated reincarnation until nosotros accomplish the province of enlightenment, or nirvana.

How does this relate to the novel EU/US privacy deal, dubbed ‘Privacy Shield’? Obviously the bargain involves the USA, in addition to it was reached yesterday, on Groundhog Day. And it’s a novel incarnation of a prior deal: ‘Safe Harbor’, killed final Oct past times the CJEU inwards the Schrems judgment (discussed Celaj, it gave a commencement indication that it would row dorsum on its example police line limiting the detention of irregular migrants, perhaps inwards lite of the migration in addition to refugee crisis. The drafters of the proposed bargain on Great Britain many interpretations. Of these, the most convincing is that the film’s flush is a Buddhist parable: repeated reincarnation until nosotros accomplish the province of enlightenment, or nirvana.

How does this relate to the novel EU/US privacy deal, dubbed ‘Privacy Shield’? Obviously the bargain involves the USA, in addition to it was reached yesterday, on Groundhog Day. And it’s a novel incarnation of a prior deal: ‘Safe Harbor’, killed final Oct past times the CJEU inwards the Schrems judgment (discussed renegotiation look to assume that the Court would dorsum away from fifty-fifty to a greater extent than complimentary displace example law, if it appears necessary to run on the Great Britain from leaving the European Union.

Once the Court reminded legal observers of Rome: the majestic writer of uniform codes that would bind a whole continent, upon which the Sun would never set. Now it increasingly reminds me of Dunkirk: the centre of a brave in addition to hastily improvised retreat from impending apocalypse, scouring for a beach to struggle its final stand. The Court used to straighten every road; at i time it cuts every corner.

Since the ‘Privacy Shield’ bargain faces many litigious critics, it seems virtually sure as shooting to terminate upwardly earlier the Court earlier long. Time volition tell where the judgment on the bargain volition check inside the broader sweep of European Union jurisprudence.

Photo credit: play.google.com

Share this post