Friday

18th Sep 2020

Opinion

Schrems privacy ruling risks EU's ties to digital world

Last month, Europe's highest court issued a judgment that threatens to sunder Europe's digital ties to the world.

On its face, the decision is a rebuke of US surveillance practices and a blow to US exporters.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

But the more enduring effect of this decision may be to isolate not the United States but Europe itself.

There is no easy or obvious solution to this crisis, but if the EU cannot find a way to ensure continued data flows, particularly with like-minded allies, Europe risks becoming an island in the digital world.

The transatlantic digital economy is deeply integrated, with about $300bn [€254bn] in trade in services that can be supplied digitally.

While the United States and Europe have taken divergent approaches to protecting personal data online, a framework called Privacy Shield (and its predecessor, Safe Harbor) has allowed companies to guarantee the protection of European personal data when transferring it to the United States.

Thousands of US companies have depended on Privacy Shield.

The list includes familiar names like Marriott, lululemon, and Shake Shack, but most are small and medium-sized enterprises. Fishbowl of Alexandria, Virginia, provides marketing software for restaurants. Pelican Parts of Harbor City, California sells auto parts over the Internet direct to consumers.

These companies collect basic information about their European customers - name, email, and so forth - and transfer that data to the United States for processing and storage.

The "Schrems II" decision—named for Maximilian Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist who has spent most of the past decade fighting the free flow of European data to the United States—invalidates Privacy Shield, effective immediately.

The court's concerns go back to 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed the reach of US domestic surveillance practices.

Perhaps more importantly, the Schrems decision casts doubt on most other legal tools for transferring European data abroad.

The global digital economy runs on data, and this decision makes it legally risky to export European data—not just to the United States, but almost anywhere.

Suddenly, firms can only confidently transfer European data to countries that have been deemed "adequate" by the EU. These "adequacy determinations," which analyse how closely a country's data protection laws resemble the EU's own, typically take years to complete.

25 years, just 12 decisions

In 25 years, only 12 countries have received an adequacy determination, a list that includes Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man.

Among major digital economies, only Japan has full adequacy (Canada enjoys "partial adequacy"); for everyone else, there is no longer solid legal ground on which data can be transferred.

With this decision, Europe is sliding toward a system of data localisation in which European data must stay in Europe. Big companies can likely bear the cost of creating redundant data systems in Europe, and for cloud computing providers that already have data centres in Europe (such as Amazon, Microsoft, and IBM), this decision could bring new customers.

But many businesses might decide the cost is too great, and instead eschew the European market altogether. Where that happens, European consumers and businesses will suffer.

There is no disputing that US authorities have the legal power to compel firms to hand over data. But the United States also has meaningful legal limits on those powers.

The situation is not so different in Europe: almost all EU member states have laws that allow the government to carry out surveillance in certain circumstances.

French surveillance law, for example, gives the state broad authority to monitor phone calls and emails without a warrant, and requires internet companies to collect citizens' data and share it with intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Meanwhile, reforms implemented in the United States since the Snowden revelations have yielded safeguards that are clearer and stricter than most.

The United Kingdom is experiencing this double standard first-hand.

When it was part of the EU, the UK's domestic surveillance programs were its own business: the European Commission has no authority to pry into member states' security practices.

Brexit

Post-Brexit, the EU is now evaluating the UK's laws, and given the harsh judgment of US rules and practices, it is possible that the UK will be denied adequacy, jeopardising digital trade across the English Channel.

Where the rule of law cannot keep data safe, restricting the free flow of data may make sense.

Given the deep surveillance state in China and Russia, and the primacy of party over law, there is good reason to believe that personal data transferred to Moscow or Shanghai is neither private nor secure.

But lumping the United States, Australia, India, Korea, and potentially the United Kingdom into this same category is nonsensical.

And holding other countries to a higher standard than the EU holds its own member states violates a core tenet of the international trading system - a regime to which Europe professes great loyalty.

There are no quick fixes to this conundrum: the court's argument is grounded in the EU Charter, and the decision is effectively constitutional. Tinkering with Privacy Shield at the margins is not likely to yield an agreement that will stand up under European judicial scrutiny.

The court has effectively demanded that other countries harmonise their laws with Europe's own—and thus become eligible for adequacy—or be cut off from digital trade with the EU.

This is impractical and likely self-defeating.

When US and EU negotiators hammered out Privacy Shield, they did so because different societies—even those with common values—inevitably take different approaches to addressing the same challenges. Without mechanisms for interoperability, that diversity creates barriers to trade and commerce.

While some privacy activists have cheered the Schrems decision, the largely theoretical gains for data privacy may come at the cost of very real economic pain. Europe is deeply trade-dependent: its exports and imports total 90 percent of its GDP.

With more and more trade moving to the digital realm, Europe can ill-afford to cut itself off. Meanwhile, China continues to advance a vision for an internet that is fractured along national boundaries and controlled by governments.

The Schrems decision, along with Europe's broader push for "technological sovereignty," is a double blow in support of this top-down model.

Resolving the current crisis will take time and will earnest engagement among governments that seek an open, global digital economy with democratic values at its heart.

If Europeans hope to take part in that economy, the EU must opt for interoperability over harmonisation, and must avoid holding other governments to a standard that it cannot hold its own member states.

The European and American economies are both built on a foundation of post-War openness and trade—with each other, more than with anyone else.

Another 75 years of prosperity will depend on recommitment to those priorities.

Author bio

Sam duPont is deputy director of digital at the German Marshall Fund.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

EU top court bins 'Privacy Shield' in Schrems privacy case

The EU's top court ruled that the EU-US data-transfer pact fails to protect EU citizens' rights to privacy - following a legal challenge from Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems against Facebook. Washington said it was "deeply disappointed" with the ruling.

Agenda

EU 'in-person' summit plus key data privacy ruling This WEEK

EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Friday and Saturday to discuss in person the EU's long-term budget and recovery plan to respond to the crisis. Meanwhile, the future of the EU-US Privacy Shield might depend on this week's ruling.

Does Erdoğan's long arm now reach Belgian universities?

Leuven's Catholic University, one of Belgium's best, has decided to close one of its respected but controversial chairs. And many say that is not because of an academic failure or scandal, but a result of the Turkish government's relentless pressure.

Why is EU rewarding Israel for annexation?

This is a critical moment. The UAE-Israel agreement, welcomed by the European Union, represents a severe blow to the Arab Peace Initiative, writes the diplomatic affairs' adviser for Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

How Covid-19 is changing the European Union

The past six months of Covid-19 response have changed the EU, but has it learnt the lessons for the crises left to come - migration, conflict, and a second wave?

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council meets Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tichanovskaja
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Region to invest DKK 250 million in green digitalised business sector
  3. UNESDAReducing packaging waste – a huge opportunity for circularity
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCOVID-19 halts the 72nd Session of the Nordic Council in Iceland
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersCivil society a key player in integration
  6. UNESDANext generation Europe should be green and circular

Latest News

  1. Commissioner: No one will like new EU migration pact
  2. Buying an EU passport 'no use for evading sanctions'
  3. MEPs call for first-ever EU law on Romani inclusion
  4. EU to help draft Libya's strategy on border security
  5. Spain to recognise Kosovo if it gets Serbia deal
  6. Ylva Johansson on Migration and Drama Queens
  7. Does Erdoğan's long arm now reach Belgian universities?
  8. Biden threatens UK trade deal over Brexit shambles

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNEW REPORT: Eight in ten people are concerned about climate change
  2. UNESDAHow reducing sugar and calories in soft drinks makes the healthier choice the easy choice
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersGreen energy to power Nordic start after Covid-19
  4. European Sustainable Energy WeekThis year’s EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW) will be held digitally!
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic states are fighting to protect gender equality during corona crisis
  6. UNESDACircularity works, let’s all give it a chance

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us