Post-Safe Harbor: Adobe fined for shipping personal info to the US 'without any legal basis' A German regulator has fined three companies for failing to change the way they share people's personal information following the invalidation of the Safe Harbor agreement last year. The Hamburg Data Commissioner fined Adobe €8,000 ($9,084), Pepsi subsidiary Punica €9,000 ($10,220) and Unilever €11,000 ($12,491) because they …
Agree, kudos to Hamburg! Certainly don't expect the Irish DPC to do sh1t...
==============================================
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0313/686753-data-protection/
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/an-epic-fail-for-ireland-s-data-protection-laws-1.2512866
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/independence-of-data-protection-commissioner-questioned-1.2513682
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/10/ireland_eu_us_data_protection_regulator/
It can't ever be fit for the ECJ purely because of the exemptions; but without them it still won't because the only way it can be made fit for EU law is by the US changing it's constitution to cover non-US persons outside the US - which is obviously never going to happen; so anything that happens without that is always going to be illegal.
By the time most readers get round to reading this article the article reporting the fact that the HoC has passed the snooper's charter will have slid off the end of News Bytes where it was posted. I don't know why this stupid appendage was added to el Reg. I suppose it might be a useful means of keeping PR companies happy by posting their press releases without interfering with the main work of the site but better judgement is needed to ensure real news doesn't go down this fast track to oblivion.
There is a more serious question at the intersection between this article and what you're talking about which is why does the ECJ allow the UK (and Germany/France) to do exactly the same thing without question that the US does that invalidates safe harbour.
Remember that we only have this bill because previous attempts have run foul of the courts
Yeah but UK courts. When it's gone before the various courts of the EU legal system the government has said "national security" and they've said "okay then" as opposed to "proportionate? no?".
All I'm saying is there should be consistency of law with this stuff. I'm not by any stretch saying they were wrong with safe harbour - I'm saying they were wrong with their response to the UK doing the same thing; and clearly so.
'...the European Data Protection Supervisor said it was "not robust enough to withstand future legal scrutiny" and refused to endorse it. And in April, Europe's data protection authorities said the new agreement was "not acceptable".'
Questioned on the UK position, the Home and Foreign Offices said "We'll ask the US what we think and get back to you".
it's either illegal or it isn't...it most certainly is a crime! and tiddly fines aren't going to stop it, death or jail sentences is the only way to stop people doing these things.
i used to work at BT when they decided to publish everybody's name and address details on the tinternet....result being several hundred murders and thousands knee cappings and the like....most famous murder being of Jill Dando.....over a decade and a half later and still no arrests, public enquiry or anything....
ebay has also given out my personal details to my rapist amongst other things.....it's not that there isn't a law to make that illegal it's just that laws aren't actually enforced!
Yes it's a tiddly little fine - but it's an actual conviction and penalty imposed. That in itself is a milestone. I'd take it as a shot across the bows intended to give everyone a prod to actually do something - rather than ...
I suspect most companies have been in denial mode, sure that Privacy Figleaf will be along "real soon now" and that'll make everything legal again.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
