Safe Harbor 2.0: US-Europe talks on privacy go down to the wire

Executive decision time

For his part, Glorioso noted there had been no calls for legislative changes in the US and that recent changes – including executive orders issued by President Obama – should provide sufficient "flexibility" for the EC to achieve its main goal: resolution of the 13 recommendations made back in October 2013.

While professing "deep respect" for the US laws and enforcement powers with respect to privacy, Glorioso did note that there nothing to bind the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to follow up on complaints. "How can we make sure that European citizens are granted their fundamental right to proper judicial redress?" he asked.

The other key aspect, agreed to by both Antonipillai and Glorioso was that there needed to be "clarity" over what access to data is allowed by US law enforcement ad intelligence agencies. "We're on the same page," Glorioso noted.

Both of them also agreed on the importance of a very solid framework that would withstand future legal scrutiny. "It is not in anyone's interest to rush this and have that agreement struck down later," said Glorioso.

Also speaking at the conference was the Austrian law student whose lawsuit resulted in the framework being discarded: Max Schrems. In a question-and-answer session, Schrems said his case against Facebook was not an anti-US case but an anti-mass surveillance issue and he said he would consider suing European companies for also infringing privacy laws.

"In Europe, we have these fundamental rights, but they are not always enforced," he noted.

Meanwhile in an opinion by Geoffrey Robinson QC, seemingly commissioned by Facebook and just published, the renowned human rights lawyer argues that since there is "growing acceptance by governments that bulk collection of data is necessary to deal with Islamic extremist threats" that the protections in place in the United States are "essentially equivalent" to European laws "on a practical level".

Which sounds very much like a legalistic way of saying because everybody's ignoring the law, the law is irrelevant. ®