DOCSLIB.ORG

Data Protection Reform Published by Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Data Protection Reform Published by Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP The EU´s Data Protection Reform Published by Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP 1 Imprint Table of contents Publisher Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP Foreword…....…………………………………………………....…………..……………………………………………………………………....…………....4 European Parliament Green European Foundation Why data protection? Where does the idea actually come from?.…………………………………………....…………....6 Rue Wiertz 60 15, Rue d’Arlon 1047 Brussels 1050 Brussels The EU data protection reform: What is it about?.…...…………...........................………………………………....…………....8 Belgium Belgium www.gef.eu Challenges in data protection….......................………….....……..…………………………………………………………………....…………....10 Selling off our data…....…………….................………………....…………..…………………………………………………………………....…………....12 Editor Ralf Bendrath Text Jan Philipp Albrecht, Ralf Bendrath, Florian Jotzo, Zora Siebert The surveillance society….................…...…......………....…………..……………………………………………………………………....…………....14 Proof-reading Levka Backen, Benjamin Breitegger, Pia Kohorst, Siana Rott Coordination of the English version Fiona Costello Frequently asked questions Design and Illustration p*zwe Print AktivDruck, Göttingen 1. Who is the Data Protection Regulation really for?…..…………..………......…………………………....…………....16 2. Will a law like this really work for the internet?…..…………......……………..........……………………....…………....18 December 2015 3. Will the new data protection regime generate more bureaucracy?…..…………….……....…………....22 4. How can I assert my rights in the EU?…..………...................……........…………………………………………....…………....24 With the financial support of the European Parliament. 5. Does data protection wipe out the press, science and archives?…..…………………………....…………....26 6. What happens if data is transferred outside EU borders?.……………...……………………....………….......28 How does EU legislation such as the Data Protection Regulation come into being?…..…....…………....30 Lobbying and the Data Protection Regulation…..…………......…...................…………………………………………....…………....32 How can I protect my privacy on the internet?…..……............…......………………………………………………....…………....34 2 Dear reader, Many people still see the words “data protection“ Nowadays it is not just every few years that how and think they are something technical that does much we earn or what religious community we be- not really affect them. However, this is a mistaken long to is gauged. The digitisation and networking notion. As well as being outdated, it is mistaken of all areas of life and all things means that, ev- because data protection is in fact not about pro- ery second, we divulge a whole raft of information tecting data at all: it is about protecting people. that can be – and, in the vast majority of cases, ac- When a census was planned in Germany in the tually is – beamed around the world at almost the early 1980’s, many people complained that the speed of light and stored in practically unlimited collection of their personal information (such as data centres until the end of time. The question their income or religious affiliation) constituted a then arises as to how we can remain in control of violation of their fundamental rights. The German our lives and our own selves in this situation. Or Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a human have we already become products of a data-orient- right to “informational self-determination“ arose ed society in which the large IT service providers out of human dignity and the right to free devel- have a firm grip on our work, economic activities opment of one‘s personality. This cumbersome and private life? This brochure aims to provide an- term marked the beginning of the long develop- swers and background both to these questions and ment of the fundamental right to data protection to the potential political and personal action that in Europe. can be taken. With best data protecting regards, Jan Philipp Albrecht Member of the European Parliament, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Rapporteur for the EU Data Protection Regulation 5 When authorities and businesses started to use who knows what about us and what they might be mainframe computers in the 1960s, a broad debate able to do with that information with the help of a took place about the power of these new machines. computer. The Federal Constitutional Court very Then, as now, the idea of data protection was to perceptively recognised that a society in which we make the most of the opportunities and possibilities feel constantly observed, recorded, evaluated and offered by new technology without reducing people scanned is no longer an open society of free and to mere objects of automatic computer operations. It equal people. was then that the concept of “data protection” was developed. In 1980, Council of Europe Convention No 108 and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and De- Data protection is, at its core, not a technical matter. velopment (OECD) guidelines made a first attempt It is not data that is to be protected, but people. Data to harmonise the right to data protection at inter- protection is about our ability, in this digitised world, national level and thereby to take account of the to make our own decisions regarding who can know increasingly international circulation of data. The something about us, what is done with this data and hitherto most decisive step taken by the European WHY DATA PROTECTION? the possible effects on our lives. The German federal Union is Directive 1995/46 on the protection of per- state of Hessen brought in the world’s first data pro- sonal data, adopted in 1995. The EU Charter of Fun- Where does the idea actually come from? tection law in 1970. Discussions also took place in damental Rights – which has been binding on the Eu- the United States during the student protests about ropean legislature since 2009 – stipulated that data whether computers should be used for the purposes protection was a fundamental right in the EU as well. of political control – by means of databases of radical The saying “my home is my castle” was coined as first paparazzi, whom Warren and Brandeis wished opposition figures, for example. In response, the US Unfortunately, many companies do not comply with long ago as 1604, in England. The notion arose in to counteract. Even then, the aim was not to resist Privacy Act was adopted in 1974. However, this act European data protection law and do what they the context of a legal dispute and limited the right technology or innovation, but rather to foster the only regulates data protection with regard to the au- want with our data. Thus the present EU data pro- of the king’s soldiers to enter a house unannounced dignified use of these things so as to respect peo- thorities; there is still no comprehensive American tection reform is the next major step and it aims to and without a reason. The right to privacy therefore ple’s right to self-determination. law on data protection with regard to companies. guarantee that we can finally exercise our rights ef- initially extended to one’s own four walls. An addi- fectively. The EU’s data protection reform is an at- tional concern for “informational self-determina- Automated machine processing of data was devel- National data protection legislation gradually ap- tempt to reclaim our digital self-determination. It is tion” arose starting in the late nineteenth century. oped in the 20th century. Even prior to the invention peared, primarily in the European Union. These laws also a component of the completion of the European In 1895, Boston lawyers Samuel Warren and Louis of the computer, punch cards were used to process set limits on data processors and granted rights to digital single market. Brandeis wrote an essay entitled “The Right to Pri- large quantities of data automatically. This played a those affected – i.e. us – to receive information about vacy”, in which they laid out the right to control role in technical calculations, but punch cards also data or to delete it, to take two examples. In its land- what other people know about us. The impetus for enabled information about people to be automati- mark decision on the 1983 census, the German Fed- this essay was provided by technological develop- cally processed – for administrative purposes, for eral Constitutional Court coined the more accurate ments that were new at the time: the first hand-held example. The Nazis, too, used punch card machines term “informational self-determination”. As an in- cameras for taking snapshots and the emergence from IBM subsidiary Hollerith to organise the in- creasing amount of information on our lives is avail- of modern daily newspapers had given rise to the dustrial mass murder of Europe’s Jews. able digitally, we must have the right to determine 6 7 gives it a clear advantage. Moreover, both American 1) High fines are planned in order to ensure that and European companies often conceal information our rights are better enforced, as are consumer about what actually happens to our data within data protection instruments, such as group litigation or protection statements that are long and difficult to class actions (the ability for associations represent- read. ing data protection, consumer protection or other public-interest causes to initiate court proceed- The EU has therefore been working for several years ings). Meanwhile, coupling is prohibited (i.e. the on a new data protection law. Numerous public con- provision of a service cannot be made conditional sultations took place starting in 2009, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Parliament: 7Th February 2017 Redistribution of Political Balance
    POLICY PAPER European issues n°420 European Parliament: 7th February 2017 redistribution of political balance Charles de Marcilly François Frigot At the mid-term of the 8th legislature, the European Parliament, in office since the elections of May 2014, is implementing a traditional “distribution” of posts of responsibility. Article 19 of the internal regulation stipulates that the Chairs of the parliamentary committees, the Deputy-Chairs, as well as the questeurs, hold their mandates for a renewable 2 and a-half year period. Moreover, internal elections within the political groups have supported their Chairs, whilst we note that there has been some slight rebalancing in terms of the coordinators’ posts. Although Italian citizens draw specific attention with the two main candidates in the battle for the top post, we should note other appointments if we are to understand the careful balance between nationalities, political groups and individual experience of the European members of Parliament. A TUMULTUOUS PRESIDENTIAL provide collective impetus to potential hesitations on the part of the Member States. In spite of the victory of the European People’s Party (EPP) in the European elections, it supported Martin As a result the election of the new President of Schulz in July 2104 who stood for a second mandate as Parliament was a lively[1] affair: the EPP candidate – President of the Parliament. In all, with the support of the Antonio Tajani – and S&D Gianni Pittella were running Liberals (ADLE), Martin Schulz won 409 votes following neck and neck in the fourth round of the relative an agreement concluded by the “grand coalition” after majority of the votes cast[2].
    [Show full text]
  • A-8-2016-0354 EN.Pdf
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Plenary sitting A8-0354/2016 28.11.2016 *** RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offenses (08523/2016 – C8-0329/2016 – 2016/0126(NLE)) Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Rapporteur: Jan Philipp Albrecht RR\1110883EN.docx PE592.131v03-00 EN United in diversity EN PR_NLE-AP_Agreement Symbols for procedures * Consultation procedure *** Consent procedure ***I Ordinary legislative procedure (first reading) ***II Ordinary legislative procedure (second reading) ***III Ordinary legislative procedure (third reading) (The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the draft act.) PE592.131v03-00 2/17 RR\1110883EN.docx EN CONTENTS Page DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION ................................. 5 SHORT JUSTIFICATION ......................................................................................................... 6 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS ................................................... 10 ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS .......................... 14 PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE ................................................................... 16 FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE .................................... 17 RR\1110883EN.docx
    [Show full text]
  • TTIP-Letter-To-Schul
    Mr. Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament European Parliament Bât. Paul-Henri Spaak, 09B011 60, rue Wiertz B-1047 Bruxelles 7 July 2016 Dear Mr. Schulz, In anticipation of the 14th round of negotiations between the EU and US for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) planned to start on 11 July in Brussels, we are writing to you on behalf of over 65 organisations representing consumers, farmers, not-for-profit health insurers, environmental and general public interest groups to express our serious concerns that the European Commission is failing to respect the European Parliament’s 2015 Resolution on TTIP. 1 Today, we released new analysis, which demonstrates that the European Commission continues to ignore critical aspects of the European Parliament’s Resolution on TTIP, in particular regarding recommendations related to protecting public health, the environment, and democracy. 1. Negotiating on and affecting EU chemicals and pesticides rules The European Parliament has called on the European Commission not to negotiate on issues “where the EU and the US have very different rules” and not to allow regulatory cooperation to affect future standards in such areas. However, the European Commission has continued to negotiate on issues that will affect legislation on chemicals, pesticides, and cosmetic products, whether directly or through regulatory cooperation. This is particularly worrying because the European Commission is already lowering current EU standards of protection (such as on limits to pesticide residues in food) in order to remove barriers to trade. 2. Respect for the EU regulatory system The European Parliament has called on the European Commission “to fully respect the established regulatory systems on both sides of the Atlantic”.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Sitting of 10 November 2010
    27.1.2011 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 25 E/1 Wednesday 10 November 2010 IV (Notices) NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2010-2011 SESSION Sittings of 10 and 11 November 2010 BRUSSELS MINUTES OF THE SITTING OF 10 NOVEMBER 2010 (2011/C 25 E/01) Contents Page 1. Resumption of the session . 2 2. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting . 2 3. Statements by the President . 2 4. Composition of Parliament . 3 5. Corrigendum (Rule 216) . 3 6. Composition of committees and delegations . 3 7. Documents received . 4 8. Action taken on Parliament’s positions and resolutions . 8 9. Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council . 8 10. Oral questions and written declarations (submission) . 8 11. Transfers of appropriations . 9 12. Implementing measures (Rule 88) . 10 13. Order of business . 11 14. Upcoming EU-US summit and Transatlantic Economic Council - EU-US Data Protection Agreement (debate) . 12 C 25 E/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 27.1.2011 Wednesday 10 November 2010 Contents (continued) Page 15. EU external strategy on Passenger Name Record (debate) . 13 16. Alternative investment fund managers ***I (debate) . 14 17. Single Market Act (debate) . 15 18. Innovation partnerships (debate) . 15 19. Strengthening the OSCE: a role for the EU (debate) . 16 20. Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement ***I (debate) . 17 21.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report
    SPECIAL REPORT Key points for the 8th term of the European Parliament (2014-2019) Madrid, November 2014 BARCELONA BOGOTÁ BUENOS AIRES LIMA LISBOA MADRID MÉXICO PANAMÁ QUITO RIO J SÃO PAULO SANTIAGO STO DOMINGO KEY POINTS FOR THE 8TH TERM OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2014-2019) 1. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 1. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2. THE LATEST ELECTION The European Parliament has, since its creation in 1962 in the 3. MAIN ISSUES IN THE context of the evolution of European integration, become the LEGISLATIVE AGENDA European Union (EU) Institution to have gained more power and 4. SPANISH DELEGATION relevance in the decision-making process of the Union. Indeed, over the years, it has gained increasingly important powers, legitimized 5. CONCLUSIONS and differentiated by the fact that it is the only EU Institution to be 6. APPENDIX 1: COMPETENCES elected by universal suffrage. 7. APPENDIX 2: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE It has evolved from being a mere advisory body to having the COMMITTEES power to co-legislate, together with the Council, in more than 85 legislative areas, exercising legislative powers as well as powers 8. APPENDIX 3: THE CURRENT of budgetary and political control. It also wields a considerable BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN amount of political influence, and its competences include those PARLIAMENT of electing the President of the European Commission, vetoing the 9. APPENDIX 4: EUROPEAN appointment of the College, and even forcing the resignation of the PARLIAMENT DELEGATIONS entire Commission after a motion of no confidence. AUTHORS The official headquarters of the Parliament are in Strasbourg, where the main plenary sessions are held.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms Viviane Reding Vice-President of the European Commission Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship B-10409 Brussels Belgium
    Ms Viviane Reding Vice-President of the European Commission Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship B-10409 Brussels Belgium 10 September 2013 Dear Vice-President Reding Pre-trial detention in the EU As the European Commission, Council and Parliament have recognised, ‘excessively long periods of pre-trial detention are detrimental to the individual, can prejudice cooperation between the Member States, and do not represent the values for which the European Union stands’.1 We are writing to you now to follow-up on the European Union’s work to tackle this problem and to urge the Commission to continue its work in this area beyond the current legislative programme, including developing a timeframe for tabling a legislative proposal setting common minimum standards for the use of pre-trial detention in the EU. We understand that the European Commission is at this stage intending to focus on monitoring the implementation of three Framework Decisions: the European Supervision Order (ESO); the Prisoner Transfer Framework Decision; and the Framework Decision on the application of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions and is not currently proposing legislation. We take note of this emphasis on effective implementation but would highlight that only one of the three Framework Decisions, the ESO, has the potential to impact on pre-trial detention. While it may go some way to alleviating problems faced by non-nationals by enabling them to return home while awaiting trial, even this is very limited in scope. In addition, the three Framework Decisions are all pre-Lisbon measures and the European Commission therefore currently has no enforcement powers if problems with their implementation are identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Data Privacy and Data Security 2015
    DATA PrivAcy AnD DATA securiTy rePorT 2015 upDates inDustry 4.0 Botnet seCurity poliCy interConneCtivity seCret CoDe CyBerwar regulation rules CryptograpHy Big Data CyBerspaCe Data proteCtion integrity CyBer DeFense Center Firewall virus proteCtion BasiC rigHts Digitization enCryption Control meCHanism DDos attaCk Data proteCtion oFFiCer rules it seCurity aCt inFormational selF-Determination passworD rules it seCurity HaCker ClouD serviCes eu general Data proteCtion regulation Data minimization selF-Determination emergenCy plan DATA PrivAcy AnD DATA securiTy rePorT 2015 DATA PrivAcy AnD DATA securiTy rePorT 2015 14 The generAl Data ProTecTion regulation sTrengThens The sTrengThs of The euroPeAn iT inDusTry conTenTs 06 A key sTeP TowArDs fAir comPeTiTion Jan Philipp Albrecht, Member of the European The grounDbreAking ruling shAking 16 Parliament SecuriTy for The uP The DigiTAl economy 21 Dr. Thomas Kremer, fourTh inDusTriAl Member of the Board of Management for Data Privacy, revoluTion Legal Affairs and Compliance at Deutsche Telekom Reinhard Clemens, CEO of T-Systems and Member of Deutsche Telekom’s Board of Management and Director of its IT Division 08 Beginning The journey To moDern-day data Policies Dr. Thomas de Maizière, 10 Data securiTy AnD 22 Capturing The mArkeT…. Federal Minister of the Interior PrivAcy Are imPorTAnT eAsy, fAsT AnD secure issues for germAny’s Dr. Ferri Abolhassan, DomesTic inTelligence Member of the Management Board service of T-Systems International Dr. Heinz-Georg Maaßen, President of the BfV 52 Welcome To The zeTTAbyTe Age 27 creating TrusT Anette Bronder, Lothar Schröder, Member of T-Systems Inter- 12 A big sTeP forwArD inTo Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory national’s Board of Manage- The DigiTAl revoluTion Board at Deutsche Telekom and ment and Director of its Vĕra Jurová, Chairman of the Data Protection Digital Division European Commissioner for Justice, Advisory Board Consumers and Gender Equality 18 Europe and its privacy shield Wolfgang Kopf, LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • EGP Committee 2015-2019 DIVISION of TASKS and RESPONSIBILITIES
    EGP Committee 2015-2019 DIVISION OF TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Countries – REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION Bulgaria Eastern MED / Eastern Balkans Group Cyprus Monica Frassoni Greece Evelyne Huytebroeck Romania Turkey Azerbaijan Belarus East of European Union Group Georgia Lena Lindström Moldova Péter Ungár Russia Ukraine Albania Croatia Western Balkans Group Kosovo Oras Tynkkynen Macedonia Michel Reimon Montenegro Serbia Slovenia Czech Republic Visegrad Group Hungary Reinhard Bütikofer Poland Péter Ungár Slovakia Austria Lake Constance Group Germany Reinhard Bütikofer Luxembourg Michel Reimon Switzerland Belgium Channel and Isles Group Ireland Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield Netherlands Michel Reimon UK Andorra France Western and Mediterranean Group Italy Monica Frassoni Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield Malta Portugal Spain Denmark Estonia Baltic and Nordic Group Finland Lena Lindström Latvia Oras Tynkkynen Lithuania Norway Sweden EGP Committee 2015-2019 (15 Dec 2015, updated 12 Sept 2016) 1 EGP Committee 2015-2019 DIVISION OF TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Working Groups Migration Monica Frassoni Reinhard Bütikofer Foreign and Security Policy Oras Tynkkynen Reinhard Bütikofer Trade Michel Reimon Monica Frassoni Future of Europe Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield Membership Review To be decided Mar Garcia Inclusion Evelyne Huytebroeck Networks Balkan Network Oras Tynkkynen Evelyne Huytebroeck Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield Gender Network Michel Reimon Evelyne Huytebroeck Local Councilors Network Péter Ungár Individual Supporters Network (ISN) TBD (Mar Garcia, Reinhard Bütikofer,
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament 2014-2019
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMCO_PV(2017)0925_1 MINUTES Meeting of 25 September 2017, 15.00-18.30 BRUSSELS The meeting opened at 15.06 on Monday, 25 September 2017, with Anneleen Van Bossuyt (Chair) presiding. 1. Adoption of agenda The agenda was adopted as shown in these minutes. 2. Chair’s announcements A. Webstreaming The Chair reminded Members that the meeting is webstreamed live. B. eMeeting The eMeeting application (http://europarl.europa.eu/emeeting) is available to all IMCO Members, their assistants and political group staff on their tablet or laptop to access the meeting documents C. Newsletter Members were informed that the new issue of IMCO's Newsletter (Nr.84) is available. D. Mission to US The Chair gave a brief overview of the IMCO mission to the US which she qualified as extremely interesting. Furthermore, she indicated that a report would be submitted soon by the secretariat. E. New Members The Chair welcomed the 2 new Members who joined the IMCO Committee: - Mr Andràs GYÜRK (Hungary) - EPP - Mr: John Stuart AGNEW (United Kingdom) - EFDD PV\1135042EN.docx PE610.806v01-00 EN United in diversity EN 3. Approval of minutes of meetings 12-13 July 2017 PV – PE608.134v01-00 4 September 2017 PV – PE609.670v01-00 4. Report on ongoing interinstitutional negotiations IMCO/8/05638 Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles Rapporteur: Daniel Dalton (ECR) Speakers:
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration Unfinished Justice: Restitution and Remembrance (Following European Conference on Restorative Justice Brussels, 26Th April 2017)
    26th June 2017 Declaration Unfinished Justice: Restitution and Remembrance (Following European Conference on Restorative Justice Brussels, 26th April 2017) Preamble It is now more than seventy years after the Holocaust (Shoah) in which six million Jews – seventy-five percent of the Jewish population of Europe – were murdered. Only a small fraction of private and communal immovable and movable property illegitimately seized from Jewish victims has been returned or compensated to rightful owners, heirs, or to the Jewish people at large. Many Holocaust survivors live in poverty and without adequate social care, and their social welfare needs are expanding rapidly as they age. In light of the above We, members of the European Parliament, affirm the moral responsibility of European Union member states to advance Holocaust-era property restitution. We also declare our enduring commitment to the provision of adequate and immediate social welfare support for Holocaust survivors, the demarcation, protection and preservation of Jewish cemeteries, mass graves and other burial sites, the preservation of Jewish heritage sites, and the promotion of Holocaust education, research and remembrance. We recognize the commitment of the European Parliament to restitution of Holocaust-era assets as called for in previous resolutions of the Parliament and reaffirm past international principles and declarations that reflect a consensus for the restitution of Holocaust-era assets. Considering the urgency of the matter We call upon Member States of the European Union to reaffirm their commitment to resolve remaining issues on restitution and compensation of looted property, in accordance with the principles of the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues, and to address the growing social welfare needs of Holocaust survivors.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Jan Philipp Albrecht, Sophie in 'T Veld, Viviane
    No. 17-2 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEcoND CIRcuIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE JAN PHILIPP ALBRECHT, SOPHIE IN ’T VELD, VIVIANE REDING, BIRGIT SIPPEL, AND AXEL VOSS, MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT MICROSOFT CORPORATION OWEN C. PELL Counsel of Record SUSAN L. GRACE WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 (212) 819-8200 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Jan Philipp Albrecht, Sophie in ’t Veld, Viviane Reding, Birgit Sippel, and Axel Voss 278152 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, in light of EU law and the EU and Irish MLATs, 18 U.S.C. § 2703 nonetheless authorizes a court in the United States to issue a warrant that compels a U.S.-based provider of email services to disclose data stored outside of the United States. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................i TABLE OF CONTENTS......................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ..............................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................5 ARGUMENT....................................7 1. Data Privacy and Data Handling are Fundamental Rights. .......................7 2. Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest. .................................12 3. This Case Underscores the MLATs’ Importance. ..............................13 4. The MLATs Exist To Mitigate Territorial Issues. ...................................18 CONCLUSION .................................25 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) and Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) v.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action
    Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTENTS With the European elections approaching, CAN The scores were based on the votes of all MEPs on Austria 2 Europe wanted to provide people with some these ten issues. For each vote, MEPs were either Belgium 3 background information on how Members of the given a point for voting positively (i.e. either ‘for’ Bulgaria 4 European Parliament (MEPs) and political parties or ‘against’, depending on if the text furthered or Cyprus 5 represented in the European Parliament – both hindered the development of climate and energy Czech Republic 6 national and Europe-wide – have supported or re- policies) or no points for any of the other voting Denmark 7 jected climate and energy policy development in behaviours (i.e. ‘against’, ‘abstain’, ‘absent’, ‘didn’t Estonia 8 the last five years. With this information in hand, vote’). Overall scores were assigned to each MEP Finland 9 European citizens now have the opportunity to act by averaging out their points. The same was done France 10 on their desire for increased climate action in the for the European Parliament’s political groups and Germany 12 upcoming election by voting for MEPs who sup- all national political parties represented at the Greece 14 ported stronger climate policies and are running European Parliament, based on the points of their Hungary 15 for re-election or by casting their votes for the respective MEPs. Finally, scores were grouped into Ireland 16 most supportive parties. CAN Europe’s European four bands that we named for ease of use: very Italy 17 Parliament scorecards provide a ranking of both good (75-100%), good (50-74%), bad (25-49%) Latvia 19 political parties and individual MEPs based on ten and very bad (0-24%).
    [Show full text]