Comments on: Counter-Terrorism and US-EU Differences in Data Privacy Law http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differences-in-data-privacy-law/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:24:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Info/Law » Finnish Employers Cannot Google Applicants http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differences-in-data-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1252 Info/Law » Finnish Employers Cannot Google Applicants Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:19:04 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differenc#comment-1252 [...] I really don’t know if Finland’s ban on googling is a good idea or a practical one. What’s interesting to me is my initial reaction about the utter impossibility of such a rule becoming law in the United States. The sharp distinction just shows how very far outside the global mainstream our privacy law has become, and it really questions, as comparative law often will, our unstated assumptions about the parameters of legal policy. [...] [...] I really don’t know if Finland’s ban on googling is a good idea or a practical one. What’s interesting to me is my initial reaction about the utter impossibility of such a rule becoming law in the United States. The sharp distinction just shows how very far outside the global mainstream our privacy law has become, and it really questions, as comparative law often will, our unstated assumptions about the parameters of legal policy. [...]

]]> By: Info/Law » Some Objections to DOJ’s Data Retention Proposal http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differences-in-data-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-152 Info/Law » Some Objections to DOJ’s Data Retention Proposal Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:27:10 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differenc#comment-152 [...] Even if the US enacted a data retention law that matched the European one exactly, however, the result would not be a similar regime. As I noted in an earlier post, Europe’s approach to data privacy is much more stringent than the American model, leading to some US-EU tension concerning sharing of data, even for counter-terrorism purposes. A US data retention law on top of already-lax American privacy law is nothing like a European data retention law counterbalanced by effective data protection requirements. [...] [...] Even if the US enacted a data retention law that matched the European one exactly, however, the result would not be a similar regime. As I noted in an earlier post, Europe’s approach to data privacy is much more stringent than the American model, leading to some US-EU tension concerning sharing of data, even for counter-terrorism purposes. A US data retention law on top of already-lax American privacy law is nothing like a European data retention law counterbalanced by effective data protection requirements. [...]

]]> By: William McGeveran http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differences-in-data-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-147 William McGeveran Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:14:26 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differenc#comment-147 Thanks for the correction, Robert. I knew it but I blew it, as they say. I acknowledge that the agreement will be renegotiated. But as I tried to say in the post, what's interesting is that a difference of opinion about data privacy is what caused the dispute, whatever the court's reasoning. It's like environmental groups that sue to stop a dam or a road and base their claim on a failure to follow the proper procedures. The motivation is substantive, even if the means to the end is technically distinct from the substance. That is important because, as Bignami also says, cooperation on counter-terrorism data-sharing between European and US authorities may be harder to achieve if there is hostility toward US data-handling rules and practices. Thanks for the correction, Robert. I knew it but I blew it, as they say.

I acknowledge that the agreement will be renegotiated. But as I tried to say in the post, what’s interesting is that a difference of opinion about data privacy is what caused the dispute, whatever the court’s reasoning. It’s like environmental groups that sue to stop a dam or a road and base their claim on a failure to follow the proper procedures. The motivation is substantive, even if the means to the end is technically distinct from the substance.

That is important because, as Bignami also says, cooperation on counter-terrorism data-sharing between European and US authorities may be harder to achieve if there is hostility toward US data-handling rules and practices.

]]> By: Robert http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differences-in-data-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-145 Robert Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:35:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/31/counter-terrorism-and-us-eu-differenc#comment-145 Just a nitpick but it's the 'Council' or 'Council of the European Union', not the Council of Europe which is a separate, non-EU institution. Confusing, I know! It's also worth adding that, seeing as this case was based on the Commission and Council not having authority to use a particular legal avenue for the data-sharing agreement, the Council is likely to renegotiate using a different legal approach - an intergovernmental one that doesn't need the agreement of the Parliament. Just a nitpick but it’s the ‘Council’ or ‘Council of the European Union’, not the Council of Europe which is a separate, non-EU institution. Confusing, I know!

It’s also worth adding that, seeing as this case was based on the Commission and Council not having authority to use a particular legal avenue for the data-sharing agreement, the Council is likely to renegotiate using a different legal approach – an intergovernmental one that doesn’t need the agreement of the Parliament.

]]>