Bestand wählen
Merken

Privacy Shield - Lipstick on a Pig?

Zitierlink des Filmsegments
Embed Code

Automatisierte Medienanalyse

Beta
Erkannte Entitäten
Sprachtranskript
can and
and this is a kind a and the and yeah the I don't really think I have to do is you back the but try I'm happy for anything my theory Austrian max but I was trying to leave Facebook the yeah the yeah little bit I'm the yeah pardon my french of on the Net and now we have used to you want to use what's that like matter no you the Facebook generates the 2011 7 years so that you can have a look at this you can get a lot of time thank you all know what that means yeah somebody who does not know what that means while I'm impressed 48 system was the you basically clicker 3 procedures with a couple of that like the 1st 3 years in Ireland which we to back because the PC there the authority didn't really want too much of a job the Kadima list of job you said that has an eye and then there was actually there's a fervor case which I'm gonna talk about today which started in 2014 it's still pending right now and Irish courts went all the way to Luxemburg to the Court of Justice back trial and the now back up to the court of justice so as to the and this ping-pong and there is a class-action were actually on having at the court of justice right now waiting for a judgment on that on to see if we can enforce privacy through class action so that basically going through all the options of privacy enforcement and just have stuff and a lot of problem practice at some point as well this is not nice from friends do the job for you you have to that and let's have another big and formats and give you the province use this kind of thing offered imitation um sorry for anybody that has to translate it because I'm very fast the talking and on pro it's sometimes hard to understand people time we'll try to slow down but the same time we have 30 minutes and I have to go through a lot of stuff but basically I I was asked to talk about privacy shield and and we call that lipstick on a pig because it's the old thing for agreement and um at a bit of a background story probably on that of what is safe harbor and what was the whole story behind all of this and we
don't have the as surveillance of slides that Snowden and disclose that were basically knew that a couple of the big IT companies from take part in a program that's called prism which is on a US surveillance system basically an interesting thing here is that from a legal perspective I'm a lawyer the big problem is a lot of that was oftentimes conspiracy hard to prove in courts and if you wanna bring a case you need to have very very solid evidence because if you the claim and you have to prove stuff so if you just walk around say there's a lot they couldn't they maybe it's not going to be good enough the interesting thing weights of disclosures by Snowden word that we actually have slides we actually had evidence that made sense that we could actually % to a court and that was the only reason this whole case ever happen is because of them and things for by way uh and you know that was kind of the factual side that we knew that these companies basically on forward data to US government and the interesting thing from a
legal perspective is how legally that works in the west and there's oftentimes talk about US law and I just want to kind of summarize that real quick it's not 100 % precise but it gives you an idea how the law US works it basically says that there needs to be a so called eletronic communications service provider so that's your Google Facebook and so on and the interesting thing is the surveillance laws do not apply to ordinary business to be you know airliners something that sense they did to the US we actually very specific in the surveillance law on electronic communication service providers and they need to have what they call for intelligence information and that is very brought um um boarding that basically excludes anything that the US may be interested in for diplomatic reasons and so on so it's not very specific it's not your terrorists something it's basically espionage and all of that as well and that's pretty much at 2 things you need under Pfizer and on top of that and all of the stuff that's been loaded line is then classified here's a so-called certification for 1 year now typically the US says yeah there's legal process when we have surveillance there some court involved but what the court justify support is that it certifies the surveillance program for a whole year it doesn't look at individual surveillance at the individual person that is actually so veiled Ijust certifies a program like upstream of prison for a whole year that's all the core does it doesn't look at the individual case where data is actually pulled and then the whole idea of that is that the so-called minimization targeting procedures that basically filter out the U. S. persons so anybody believes in the US or is a US citizen if you European this whole minimizing and targeting procedure doesn't apply to you so you not protected I mean any of that the reason for that is if you would have surveillance that goes as far as Pfizer does for US people he would actually violate the 4th Amendment on the US constitution so all of what the US does right now would be unconstitutional if they would do it on US citizens but since some fundamental rights in the US doesn't apply to foreigners they to it works and that's the whole idea of minimization training procedures to filter them out and then there is a so-called directive at a service provider and it doesn't specifically so Opicina what it does and how it works but it's basically telling a service provider that has to be some some technical interface to pull the data that's the ordered a goes to the Mitchell service provider saying you have to give us the data that's not dumb by the court that's actually done by the US government that water and that the court actually just uncertified civil surveillance program once you
so if I'm little smiley down here and on the Facebook customer and I have a contract with face violent might they'd actually go straight to the service for Facebook being the US parent company and they're 2 ways that they'd as far as we know yet but it could be legally more ways and 2 ways were sure that some data is full that's basically upstream were deployed on the cable and then there's prison where they could pull it from the service off to service provider and prison makes sense if you for example have input that that way you can still pull it from the service if you can't get it upstream upstream is much broader both of that works on the Pfizer upstream can possibly also go on work and the 12 triple 3 an executive order that the dual legal basis for that um and a couple of columns and stuff I'm going to touch later on but that's the legal basis and that's what we have to look at so and a couple of things that are
disputed that we don't know yet the exact technical implementation amount of data that's really pulled the review mechanisms that are in trouble because all of that is classified and we don't have any proof of it a lot of rumors a lot of hints but not really anything that was solid now that was
basically what Snowden disclose and and what was interesting to me order reactions we had some demonstrations we had the
European Parliament doing resolutions the European
Commission did a wonderful review Merkel
was pleased about her phone and that was basically the reaction and we knew that this is not gonna go far the and it was how can we make a legal
case out of this and I was the original thing for a case at the Court of Justice and the strategic approach there was kind of interesting and if you bring a case like that you have to be very strategic because you gonna go against the government and you have to find some point we can hate without having 100 Loria screen back at you and you're kind of messed up but you need to find like the 1 little bit where you can actually pull in and where you can actually get stuff done so the interesting thing was that we actually have a situation of public-private surveillance partnership we have on the internet service providers to get the data and the government that pulls it from them so it's this arm combination of private and public that was interesting legally and then the interesting thing is in our case Facebook was subject to US law in EU law the headquartered in Ireland of 84 % of the users operated out of violence so you can say it's an 84 per cent European companies so I guess they have to follow European law at the same time the mother companies in the US so they have to follow that lost at the same time and EU law regulates third-country transfers so if you have personal data in the European Union and do not allowed to send it to any 3rd country unless you have some legal way to actually protect the data so it's basically export control on personal data um and finally all this you lasted for interpreted under our fundamental rights trees so that was interesting because even if 1 company sends data to another company you've all your fundamental rights applying in this transfer and this all connection actually made this case possible an
artist's feature of European law was very interesting for us is that the definitions in European law very brought so for example processing data already is I'm just making data available so 1 thing in whole legal strategy was to into never claimed that I was actually Seville by the NSA I was only saying my data has to be made available to the NSA by Facebook under US law and that is the interesting thing if you go very abstract and the case and kind of try to say the only thing I have to prove is that they have to make it available not that they actually called my data then you actually believe a lot of the case that you couldn't possibly prove prove otherwise and that's interesting thing because that's exactly the difference to US law the typically have to prove all these these things that you cannot prove and therefore you case is gonna go for so the interesting thing is because European laws much broader in their definitions you could actually bring a case that you would never be able to bring in the US the thing that was interesting for us as we
basically compared prison to data retention and set the surveillance under um prison is just basically 10 times as bad as data retention of data retention was illegal in the European Union a prison has to be 10 times as a legal basically go through the different things to the court of justice was
interested in and fundamental thing I think that everybody has to understand to talk about the state of transfer used is we have a actually on the very meta level we have a conflict of laws tetration here basic European law says you need to have privacy on Facebook servers in very simple terms and US losses you have to have surveillance on the same on the same data and that is the fundamental conflict of all these cases we have basically a conflict of jurisdiction 1 country screens of Facebook say we need surveillance data country screens at Facebook and says you can't do that and that is the fundamental clash that we actually have and this whole area the very different than the private sector and the private sector and there's basically no general data protection law in the US your past that and because there's no conflict is simply get companies in the US could actually fill that through self-certification so we have to seperate between the private sector that we can fix and the government sector that we can only fixed if we change either European fundamental rights for US surveillance lost both is not overly like the right of I was the legal argument that we
brought um if my data goes over to Facebook this data can only leave the European Union at the export-control thing if the so called adequate protection in the 3rd country and my legal argument was very simple you don't have to study law offered as I was basically walking up to the court and said mass surveillance is not adequate protection full-slot have their so how the procedure goes down under safe
harbor you could actually go to private arbitration service coke trustee and you had to file a complaint with them 1st of filed a complaint that because you could only have 100 I think 250 characters at the most the only thing I could say stop feasible involvement in prisons that was the legal argument that could possibly make in that small little box and they came back to me saying the trustee does not have any authority to address the issue because a private company can hardly tell the situ to stop what it's doing so the next place to go go is the
Irish Data Protection Commissioner that's the Irish Data Protection Commissioner my most favorite slide of the presentation it's actually that's a supermarket and the little red that the little blue door the very right that's the Irish PC and and the interesting thing with the Irish TPC another new office because that picture was an immediate too much so you've got a office and but at the time really their
Demaine and the their their their head and was actually going on to national radio in Ireland and said I don't think it will come as much of a surprise that in fact the US intelligence services do have access from US companies and it was amazing pictures she agreed on public radio that's actually were absolutely right and the big problem in any privacy cases to get the facts right fact always the big issue the law is kind of a smaller ship so he went on to national radio recorded saying all these facts actually true we know that the surveillance and so that was the most important thing as reason we also went with island we also filed in Germany for example and here I think the authorities as the investigating cases something like that and what he was stupid enough to walk out into public in the obviously there's all this surveillance he just felt that legally there's no problem and so we appeal that to the Irish High Court that's
that um and had are here and there
and what basically happened in Ireland is that they approved all the facts and pass it on to the European Court of Justice that's the highest court in the European Union and because a fervent validity of it was at stake they have to refer to the Court of Justice and at the court of
justice we actually had a very long 1 the hearing it was really interesting to see how come how the kind of detailed the knowledge was off the judges there I was because that oftentimes the problem privacy cases is that the judges don't really know what all of this this and in this case were actually really happy with the judges and and the understanding of it and and that kind of a little side note I think it was funny some of the day before the hearing there were a couple of people texting missing from different Member States texting me and guess who was just calling us as like I don't know the answers are someone from the US government is calling us that we should change our position because the Member States that all our money and put their views on before the court as well and apparently the use common has try to push tremendously the day before to change your positions and what but it was too late everybody was already on the plane so was the could do anything and at the hearing actually there was someone from the US missions uh many approach me and I was like a are you doing and he was like 0 you're plaintiff as like yeah you're washed out from the US West Media and it's uh were chatting and it was funny because like and you know and you still need any phone numbers to call around and tell people what to say in front of the court are you doing doing that's the fun thing is if you're a student you can say things like that but that the planets in our states and actions and actually agreed and said yeah we have to kind of make sure that our position is is is heard and but he said that the only found out about the hearing on Friday nite then there was the weekend then the only had Monday to intervene anymore which was way too late and on Tuesday the actual hearing happened so they were simply too late you intervene anymore even though that hearing I think was on the web page of the Court of Justice for 3 weeks so they have all the wonderful surveillance but they don't even find out where the actual core data is happening I here
so that was fun um of really interesting thing happens the court of justice as well the judgment came out I think only 2 weeks after the other the general at the court of justice there's an advocate general that gives the general opinion about under case and then there's the actual judgment and typically that takes 2 3 months and we heard rumors that there's gonna be a judgment on on I think October 6 because that is phrases like 2 days 2 weeks or 3 weeks after the end of the general that never happens it's like truly exceptional and a rumor goes that the former or the President of the Court of Justice that retired on the 7th of October detail later wanted to push the judgment of before he retires as like a goodbye present and so it was actually really interested to see how apparently judges get very emotional of these privacy cases which is very good news long run if we wanna go to the Court of Justice in the future as well but so what the court of justice say it's actually set had a very very bold and judgment it's at 2 things 1st of all it's at that mass surveillance violates the essence of article 7 which is the right to privacy under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that there the lack of legal redress so there's no court to go to and appeal anything by if the essence of your article 47 rights is your free trial and I may know that this is only exciting to me around because I'm a lawyer but
in EU law there is the so-called proportionality test the test if a law is proportional to or not and if you have for example and the the attention it may be somewhere in the disproportionate area may be proportionate and sort however you can have a violation of the essence which is kind of no way this is ever going to justify what you do here no matter how many people you can see from the dead or whatever it's simply a violation of the essence outside of and beating proportionality and in our case was the 1st time what a Court of Justice found that there is a violation of the essence of any fundamental rights and in this case the highest share so obviously he argued that but if you if you to court of justice and you get the judgment handed down everybody's reading something someone someone earlier screened up to like soccer got DSL and let's try it has so
anyways that's you know all your from but anyways and the other stuff that was interesting was that they said that the country has to have essentially equal protection and as the European Union and that's interesting because as said before the law only talks about adequate protection an adequate is not a legally really meaningful work and put anything and nothing can be adequate so and what actually happened in the law it said the colored originally there was lobbied out in the nineties to adequate because that means nothing and now the court basically lobbied backing into essentially equivalent and basically put the lot back of word was and they said that they had to be effective detection and supervision mechanisms and they also said that they have to be loop has to be legal redress in language article 47 now this is very interesting because none of the European Union countries that has serious surveillance does any of the books and so they actually went very far in health wise like for example valid Austin citizens and I was available to German services there is nothing like that in Germany were could possibly appeal to how does that happen and the EU treaties and have an exception for national security so anything that is in the national security area is exempt from you all the Member States never gave that part to the European Union so the Court of Justice can rule about national security of a 3rd country because that's not exempt from you a lot but it cannot rule about national security of or all Member States which is a truly absurd situation and that's the reason why basically the USA uh Germany or France and so I get along with and without really having a problem going to get back to that later on at least with the UK that is the thing that
is sold by Praxa because then there's the country and we can break case there was um but they will have a look at the bright side of rectitude so actually that's all the pre story to get to that stuff I should actually talk about the and which is privacy shield or called safe harbor 2 . 0 I usually call it safe harbor 1 . 0 . 1 or something like that because it's basically the same text
and what happens on Wednesday 4 was keeps down is basically that the US became like any other country we transfer data to that simply just lost special status it had before through the treaty and and they're still different possibilities to send data to the US of example you can use consent performance of a contract so called S standard contractual clauses binding copper rules and so on so it's not like you couldn't send data to the US in where which is not that easy you had to use different legal mechanisms but the facebook actually switch to s he sees and with a case right
now pending in Ireland word Irish Data Protection Commissioner sued me and Facebook um over the standard contractual clauses it's still the same complaint this original cases where right now and we had about 4 week 5 weeks in courts in Dublin beginning of this year with about 20 solicitors and barristers and about 45 thousand pages produced in this case um work expect about 5 to 10 million in costs for its legal battle for the 2nd round where I got simpler I didn't start this BBC started that um and there's gonna be a 2nd reference we're still fighting what the question is so actually the whole case is going to go back up to the Court of Justice the 2nd time around just on another legal basis but I can't really talk much about this case because of the pending case but let's say Facebook totally fucked up in that procedure and they had like all the wonderful experts would thousands of pages and when it was before the court you just have to look at the footnotes like guys you actually saying this is in the footnote but it's not there he just made it up and it was amazing to see how they have incredibly well paid lawyers but they don't check their own stuff and it's it's it's really they just apparently the so full of themselves that they think we gotta get away with anything and however digestion land gave get away so the most important part to me
is that actually that judgment that we have in first-round that's already kind of from fixed I can talk about it actually again says that there is massive indiscriminate processing by the US government so that is actually what they challenge were to say there is no mass surveillance and it's as exactly that again so on the whole sexual stuff the lost again and that that's kind of a little side stories have moved back to the actual um privacy shield and how that that thing actually happened I think you need to understand the history of privacy shield to explain why it's bullshit um on January 31st little fairy tale and there was a deadline by the European data protection authorities and January 31st at
might near Times reports and the EU and US couldn't agree on any kind of new and I was talking to the reporter and he said he got that information and in a way that he knows 100 per cent certain apparently on the 30 1st the 2 sides and stood up from the data from the table and said there is no agreement we can't agree on anything you anything here 48 hours later there was apparently a phone call between the US Government and the European Commission and someone was told that you're responsible um uh and Commissioner should just get anything done and 48 hours later the same
year times of the same reporter reports that there is now a new deal um and we didn't really know the name yet but 24 hours later
they was suddenly this logo I was called privacy shield I was talking to people that negotiating was like how did you come up with this shitty name and he said I didn't know about the name until that actual press conference because that deal didn't exist it was simply a logo wouldn't medium and no actual deals and we know that because 1 week later epic US privacy and she'll mate a freedom of information request with the US government asking for the actual text of that field and they
got a response I think 2 days later and saying that they cannot have the the text because the record that you requested does not exist and here so 1 month later he was actually affects um and it's basically safe harbor again and it's the same
text most of it is 1 1 the same like if you would do a red line comparison of it probably 5 % would be new text all the rest is basically the same and and they just put a new name on it calling a Privacy shield and that's why I basically think it's lipstick on a pig and what's the problem with privacy shield if that gets ever back to the court of justice so basically get your pygmies court um how would that go down and under what the judgment by the Court
of Justice dare to hurdles to privacy shield would have
to overcome um 1 hurdle is basically this essential influence which is important the in the in the in the private sector and then it also has to be combined with the charter from and to rights which is relevant for mass surveillance and just 2 3 examples why this would not work and
privacy she'll still follows the so called noticing choice principle in the US not consent not a legal basis to process data but notice in choice which is a very kind of some yet not very stringent system and in a very simple graphics
on the left all these types of data processing are covered under EU law from collecting the data all the way to the leading it anything you would do with data is covered by the law and you need a legal basis for another under privacy shield you only need an opt to provide an opt out so you don't even need to ask for consent any other legal basis you only have to provide for an opt-out if you disclose data to someone else or if you change the purpose after the processing so if you just compare these 2 things together you can say this is absolutely not essentially equivalent basically do 1 thing is teeny tiny protection and the other 1 is full protection and if you
compare that if you collect data usage story all of that is not even covered you don't need any legal basis you can just do it under privacy shield and only few then disclose or change of purpose then you can actually you actually need to provide an opt out you don't even have to have to ask for consent you just need to have some popped up box on some web page and 1 fights them and you can even kill these 2 things
by simply putting a very broad purpose into your
privacy policy saying we use the data for anything wanna a user so you will never have to change a purpose if it's that brought and you basically have third-party cause words as you can send the data to anybody else the and thereby you have basically unlimited data processing on under privacy shield which is should officially be the same thing as European Union law and so it will never not add up
ever the other thing that was interesting was redress and I think that kind of displaced quite well how this is never gonna work in practice because
imagine I wanna get a beef with Facebook for the 21st time and I ride my funny little complaint to facebook they have 45 days to send a letter back saying for off and that's what they typically do then I can complain to trust the we already know them before it's the guys who to 20 250 characters to complain about stuff they're actually chosen and paid for by Facebook but officially independent 2nd complaint with them if my complaint is upheld they tell Facebook not to do stuff anymore but is not enforceable it's basically e-mail to facebook saying don't do this anymore if the further do it there's no consequence there's no way they also don't have investigative powers that he cannot figure out of phase would actually doesn't servers they can only look at whatever I bring up and I'm usually not able to get it going to be able to bring up much and if I'm unhappy with that I can go to my national DP in Europe and they can then raised the issue with the Department of Commerce in the US in an informal procedure again the Department of Commerce doesn't have any investigative powers so let's say I made a nexus requested a 1 of a copy of all my data dozens and anything back none of these guys can actually find out what phase we actually stored on the servers to then decide over my axis request and if I'm with the RT-PCR 1st have to go to court to sue them to actually do all of that because they would never do that anyways and and all of them can theoretically go to the Federal Trade Commission which again doesn't really have too much enforcement powers and not a lot of investigative powers but definitely more than the others and but the FTC or reset they're not going to do that if you don't like it and they haven't done that so far so basically all of that is all in grade because you don't get anywhere with all this No on top of all of that and you have to go through all the other things before before you can appeal to the so called privacy shield panel which is going to be about 10 or 15 or something like that and you can call with a you can have a Skype call basically within a video conference and and talk with them over your privacy concerns and even their decision is not going to be legally binding but you would then have to transfer that for an American court into a legally binding American position and all of this is probably gonna take 3 or 4 years to just get your fucking access requests and so that is the enforcement mechanism of privacy issue which make sure that even if you violate any of these rules that you can hardly violates there's no way you will ever get your rights and and
the interesting thing here is also a question of fair competition now and we have people on the European market that can run under this system instead of really following on the European rules I think that's also an issue that
our companies now have to follow GPR all these fancy privacy laws we have and and US companies don't the most interesting
part actually of whole privacy she'll thing is the whole surveillance issues and the European Commission made a very interesting assessment and had a press
release when they put our privacy shield saying that you ask of yours authorities assured that there is no indiscriminate per mass surveillance by national security authorities so we now know were safe if you look into the privacy shield actually there is an x 6 page
for that says that there is some of so called box surveillance for 6 specific purposes so in the press releases that there is no mass surveillance but now there's spoke surveillance in Annex 6 page 4 and and that is formed and a lot of physics purposes that are very broad for example the last 1 here is combating transnational criminal threats so you just need a crime that goes across the border and the threat of such a crime you don't even need a crime so just the fact that the Mexicans made for will draw drugs over the border this such a transcript of transnational criminal threats that already allows mass surveillance and so if you look at the definitions here if you really really brought however and they say that
this is true about surveillance and there only 6 purposes but the word called actually has a footnote 5 and lawyers love footnotes so you follow that and if you follow that footnote the
actually say that these limitations only apply if data is not temporally temporarily temporarily acquired to facility targeted surveillance so the all stories if I collect all the data in bulk 1st to lead target someone with in that ball then it's not mass surveillance and that is the interesting thing in that's basically where the definition goes differently the US basically has that view if you haven't and if you have your I don't know your browser and you just type in 1 year you obviously only have access to 1 page at a time so your browser doesn't give you access to the internet to the bulk of the whole Internet but only to 1 page at a time so therefore it's not collection of data that's kind of the idea that they tried to uh and put up and therefore you basically get out of the whole system and
finally I'm kind of short with my what they did so is that because it would be impossible that the US and the European Union Woods um put all of that into their own finding what they did is they basically got a letter from the US and annex the letter from the US to the decision so that basically did is the ask foreign governments to prove that there was great hope that a letter and an exit to European Union decision if you would do that which I need you would basically as China to give you a letter how great your for of the fundamental rights in China are the and extent to European Union decision and the obviously the 1 China is great because the Chinese government sent us a letter saying it's and that's basically how they got around uh around all these issues the very
final issue that I wanna bring up is that you can now complain to so-called privacy shield ombudsperson there's not a quarter anything but an ombudsperson in the US State Department of Foreign department and and that goes through the National DPA the fun part of all of that this is due the end so you'll get from this redress mechanism in it's the only new redress mechanism in privacy shield is all repre described in privacy shield and the answer is gonna be the same answer no matter what your cases and the cancer we 1st of all that has to be investigated and secondly they will tell you that the ITER complied with the law or change their behavior did not gonna tell you if they comply to the lobby only set either be complied with the law or are we gonna change the Judith differently the future and then they will neither confirm nor deny the there was any surveillance anyways and that is your wonderful redress that should apparently fulfilled on your right to redress and the European
Union law I'm going to jump through that Snowden was
pissed about it as well you can read and on Twitter yourself and 1 last thing that I wanna talk about is how to kill privacy shield because of anybody in this room wants to kill it there's a little very easy way to do that and I'm encouraging anybody to do that and you can basically file injunction against an internet service provider at your local European Court and basically claim the privacy issue was invalid and request a reference to court of justice because your local court will have to refer a case like that the court of justice and and then you can basically focus on the commercial things because that's much easier to challenge than the mass surveillance and then you basically just have to sit back and relax so if anyone in this room wants to go to the Court of Justice unhappily assisting yeah and and finally I need to
jump to the very last part because of work right now that's part about use of the European Surveillance told you that already there's actually a
way to on probably get discourses that there is no jurisdiction for mass surveillance in Europe and by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg but there is a possibility to bring the same cases with the same legal rational to Strasbourg and your in the 1st case going up at site in our case I think for European surveillance this OK so their importance well but we're just going to need a different court to go to the very last thing I sorry but I have to pick
something and we just started their
privacy enforcement NGO and we're looking for donations on that actually for memberships because I do all of this for free but to do cases like then actually win stuff we need to have a team on European level that the ship like that and especially were looking into the commercial sector where working together with the and use that already exist and nationally but the idea is to really do stuff on European level very quickly because of all the my time
questions please ask 1st because for overtime anyways sorry with reference to say thank you thank you thank you thank the B 2 B you
if it is the the the the home and the users and it cut cut the it but I
Autorisierung
Bit
Facebook
Datenmissbrauch
Gewicht <Mathematik>
Punkt
Extrempunkt
Klasse <Mathematik>
Gruppenoperation
Mailing-Liste
Physikalisches System
Marketinginformationssystem
Datenmissbrauch
Algorithmische Programmiersprache
Physikalische Theorie
Konfiguration <Informatik>
Prozess <Informatik>
Elektronischer Fingerabdruck
Schnittstelle
Webforum
Telekommunikation
Wellenpaket
Prozess <Physik>
Content <Internet>
Baumechanik
Information
Gesetz <Physik>
Service provider
Richtung
Service provider
Graph
Open Source
Message-Passing
OISC
Perspektive
Serielle Schnittstelle
Typentheorie
Optimierung
Gerade
Schnittstelle
Datentyp
Extremwert
Digitales Zertifikat
Speicher <Informatik>
Ruhmasse
Telekommunikation
Physikalisches System
Algorithmische Programmiersprache
Videokonferenz
Rechenschieber
Gefangenendilemma
Dienst <Informatik>
Chatten <Kommunikation>
Rechter Winkel
Fehlererkennungscode
Mereologie
Wort <Informatik>
Speicherabzug
Information
Kraftfahrzeugmechatroniker
Facebook
Implementierung
Ein-Ausgabe
Mechanismus-Design-Theorie
Service provider
Design by Contract
Gefangenendilemma
Dienst <Informatik>
Beweistheorie
Basisvektor
Vererbungshierarchie
Facebook
Ordnung <Mathematik>
Implementierung
Einfach zusammenhängender Raum
Fundamentalsatz der Algebra
Facebook
Bit
Punkt
Schaltnetz
Wärmeübergang
Nonstandard-Analysis
Gesetz <Physik>
Service provider
Netzwerktopologie
Rechter Winkel
Wärmeübergang
Gamecontroller
Facebook
Ordnung <Mathematik>
Bildauflösung
Touchscreen
Gefangenendilemma
Facebook
Subtraktion
Prozess <Physik>
Strategisches Spiel
Speicher <Informatik>
Content <Internet>
Gesetz <Physik>
Fundamentalsatz der Algebra
Parametersystem
Facebook
Datenmissbrauch
Einfügungsdämpfung
Versionsverwaltung
Ruhmasse
Wärmeübergang
Term
Gesetz <Physik>
Datenmissbrauch
Algorithmische Programmiersprache
Gesetz <Physik>
Übergang
Flächeninhalt
Rechter Winkel
Server
Facebook
Versionsverwaltung
Aggregatzustand
Touchscreen
Autorisierung
Parametersystem
Quader
Sampler <Musikinstrument>
Feasibility-Studie
Bildauflösung
Extrempunkt
Kombinatorische Gruppentheorie
Nummerung
Office-Paket
Gefangenendilemma
Rechenschieber
Dienst <Informatik>
Facebook
Primzahlzwillinge
Autorisierung
Datenmissbrauch
Dienst <Informatik>
Rechter Winkel
Dienst <Informatik>
Gesetz <Physik>
Schreib-Lese-Kopf
Ebene
Service provider
Datenmissbrauch
Subtraktion
YouTube
Ortsoperator
Serielle Schnittstelle
Gruppenoperation
t-Test
Validität
Zahlenbereich
Speicherabzug
Web-Seite
Aggregatzustand
Softwaretest
Datenmissbrauch
Gemeinsamer Speicher
Güte der Anpassung
Ruhmasse
Kombinatorische Gruppentheorie
Codec
Gesetz <Physik>
Quick-Sort
Codec
Shareware
Flächeninhalt
Gruppentheorie
Rechter Winkel
Ruhmasse
Messprozess
Soundverarbeitung
Kraftfahrzeugmechatroniker
Äquivalenzklasse
Datenmissbrauch
Schlüsselverwaltung
Computersicherheit
Formale Sprache
Validität
Ausnahmebehandlung
Schlussregel
Gesetz <Physik>
Datenmissbrauch
Gerade
Mechanismus-Design-Theorie
Loop
Dienst <Informatik>
Flächeninhalt
Standardabweichung
Mereologie
Wort <Informatik>
Drei
Aggregatzustand
Schnelltaste
Kraftfahrzeugmechatroniker
Expertensystem
Facebook
Datenmissbrauch
Unrundheit
Schlussregel
Algorithmische Programmiersprache
Homepage
Design by Contract
Homepage
Standardabweichung
Rechter Winkel
Design by Contract
Wärmeübergang
Basisvektor
Mereologie
Facebook
Wort <Informatik>
Standardabweichung
Autorisierung
Datenmissbrauch
Prozess <Physik>
Prozess <Informatik>
Ruhmasse
Systemaufruf
Aggregatzustand
Information
Soziale Software
Datenmissbrauch
Gruppenoperation
Wärmeübergang
Videospiel
Ruhmasse
Verbandstheorie
Gruppoid
Binäre Relation
Strom <Mathematik>
Operations Research
Verkehrsinformation
Basisvektor
Tabelle <Informatik>
Datenmissbrauch
Mereologie
Digitalsignal
Datenfeld
Computersicherheit
Information
Information
Datenmissbrauch
Soziale Software
Verkehrsinformation
Datenmissbrauch
Datensatz
Framework <Informatik>
Prozess <Informatik>
Schätzung
Endogene Variable
Profil <Strömung>
Paarvergleich
Datenmissbrauch
Gerade
Endogene Variable
Auswahlaxiom
Äquivalenzklasse
Datenmissbrauch
Prozess <Physik>
Rechter Winkel
XML
Basisvektor
Ruhmasse
Auswahlaxiom
Reduktionsverfahren
Selbst organisierendes System
Datenmissbrauch
Prozess <Physik>
Quader
Datentyp
Basisvektor
Datenverarbeitung
Speicher <Informatik>
Information Retrieval
Web-Seite
Gesetz <Physik>
Datenmissbrauch
Prozess <Informatik>
Physikalischer Effekt
XML
Datenverarbeitung
Wort <Informatik>
Gesetz <Physik>
Inverser Limes
Kraftfahrzeugmechatroniker
Facebook
Datenmissbrauch
Ortsoperator
Systemaufruf
Schlussregel
Kartesische Koordinaten
Physikalisches System
Algorithmische Programmiersprache
Gradient
Videokonferenz
Entscheidungstheorie
Auswahlaxiom
XML
Server
Figurierte Zahl
Phasenumwandlung
Leistung <Physik>
Autorisierung
Datenmissbrauch
COM
XML
Computersicherheit
Mereologie
Ruhmasse
Computersicherheit
Ruhmasse
Gesetz <Physik>
Homepage
Koroutine
Quader
Physikalismus
Computersicherheit
Ruhmasse
Kraft
Wort <Informatik>
Feasibility-Studie
Information
Extrempunkt
Widerspruchsfreiheit
Homepage
Homepage
Fundamentalsatz der Algebra
Sichtenkonzept
Browser
Vorzeichen <Mathematik>
Homepage
Internetworking
Homepage
Entscheidungstheorie
System F
Garbentheorie
Rechter Winkel
Datentyp
Inverser Limes
Gruppoid
Maßerweiterung
Term
Kraftfahrzeugmechatroniker
Datenmissbrauch
Rechter Winkel
Mathematisierung
Mereologie
Gesetz <Physik>
Beweistheorie
Stellenring
Wechselsprung
Datenmissbrauch
Elektronische Publikation
Twitter <Softwareplattform>
Fokalpunkt
Mereologie
Stellenring
Ruhmasse
Datenmissbrauch
Service provider
Datenmissbrauch
Web Site
Ruhmasse
Element <Mathematik>
FAQ
Übergang
Hypermedia
Medianwert
Systemprogrammierung

Metadaten

Formale Metadaten

Titel Privacy Shield - Lipstick on a Pig?
Serientitel 34th Chaos Communication Congress
Autor Schrems, Max
Lizenz CC-Namensnennung 4.0 International:
Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.
DOI 10.5446/34926
Herausgeber Chaos Computer Club e.V.
Erscheinungsjahr 2017
Sprache Englisch

Inhaltliche Metadaten

Fachgebiet Informatik
Abstract In 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has overturned the EU-US data sharing system called „Safe Harbor“ over US mass surveillance, as disclosed by Edward Snowden. Only months later the European Commission agreed with the US government to replace it with the so-called “Privacy Shield”, despite the existence of PRISM and Upstream surveillance. Why the new deal is nothing but the old “Safe Harbor”, what we can learn for the documents exchanged between the EU and the US and why it will very likely be overturned as soon as it reached the CJEU again.
Schlagwörter Ethics, Society & Politics

Zugehöriges Material

Video wird in der folgenden Ressource zitiert

Ähnliche Filme

Loading...
Feedback