{"id":15777,"date":"2020-07-20T09:53:00","date_gmt":"2020-07-20T08:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rosello-mallol.com\/anulacio-privacy-shield-no-advocats\/"},"modified":"2021-03-10T11:41:32","modified_gmt":"2021-03-10T10:41:32","slug":"invalidation-privacy-shield-non-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rosello-mallol.com\/en\/invalidation-privacy-shield-non-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"Invalidation of the Privacy Shield for non-lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
On 16 July, the EU Court of Justice, adopted a decision that could have a very significant impact on the everyday management of many businesses: invalidation of the Privacy Shield<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In essence, this decision raises doubts as to the use of platforms or technological tools that host the personal data of Europeans in the United States. Let’s see why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the right to data protection in Europe was implemented (in the early 80s), a very Eurocentric view<\/strong> of the issue was imposed, which in short implies that the transfer of data between EU countries did not represent a bigger problem but instead, when this data left the EU, additional requirements were needed because the laws outside the EU in this field did not meet European standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, the 1995 Directive (already repealed), established a system so that countries outside the EU were \u201capproved\u201d in order to transfer data <\/strong>with the same guarantees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is the list of countries<\/a> considered suitable. Transferring data to countries on this list has the same requirements as for transfers within the EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The United States entered the list but with one particularity: companies that wanted to host data from Europeans had to “enrol” into a protocol agreed between the US and the EU. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This protocol was first called Safe Harbor<\/strong>, which was cancelled in 2015, and as of 2016, it received the name of the also-cancelled Privacy Shield<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reasons for both invalidations are essentially the same: it cannot be guaranteed that data from Europeans, once hosted in the US, will not be accessed by US investigative agencies without minimal guarantees<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In both cases the decisions were the result of lawsuits against Facebook from an Austrian citizen named Max Schrems<\/strong> (@maxschrems).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many companies, very large and widely used by very different profiles (from freelancers to large corporations), are registered in the Privacy Shield: Google, Mailchimp, Zoho, etc (here is the full list of companies<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n It must be said that, in order to be included in the Privacy Shield all that is required is a self-certification process for the company<\/strong>. Nobody checks that they effectively comply with the protocol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, on 16 July 2020, the EU Court of Justice invalidated the Privacy Shield (although the USA continues to consider it valid \u2026) and this has direct effects on European companies that host data from third parties<\/strong> (customers, employees, leads, etc.) in one of the countries included on the list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Once the Privacy Shield is cancelled, European companies must find one of the other options that the GDPR provides to transfer personal data outside the EU:<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are facing a sentence with significant impact that could really affect many digital or traditional businesses that make great use of Information Technologies, so bear in mind the following recommendations:<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat is (or was) the Privacy Shield?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
What does its cancellation imply?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Recommendations<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n