>>1120767
https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles
Principles[edit]
The seven principles from 2000 are:[11]
Notice - Individuals must be informed that their data is being collected and how it will be used.The organization must provide information about how individuals can contact the organization with any inquiries or complaints.
Choice - Individuals must have the option to opt out of the collection and forward transfer of the data to third parties.
Onward Transfer - Transfers of data to third parties may only occur to other organizations that follow adequate data protection principles.
Security - Reasonable efforts must be made to prevent loss of collected information.
Data Integrity - Data must be relevant and reliable for the purpose it was collected.
Access - Individuals must be able to access information held about them, and correct or delete it, if it is inaccurate.
Enforcement - There must be effective means of enforcing these rules.
The U.S. government does not regulate Safe Harbor, which is self-regulated through its private sector members and the dispute resolution entities they pick. The Federal Trade Commission "manages" the system under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Commerce.[17]to comply with the commitments can be penalized under the Federal Trade Commission Act by administrative orders and civil penalties of up to $16,000 per day for violations. If an organization fails to comply with the framework it must promptly notify the Department of Commerce, or else it can be prosecuted under the 'False Statements Act'.[15
Patriot Act's reach[edit]
In June 2011, Microsoft U.K.'s managing director Gordon Frazer said that "cloud data, regardless of where it is in the world, is not protected against the Patriot Act.
In October 2015, the ECJ responded to a referral from the High Court of Ireland in relation to a complaint from Austrian citizen Maximillian Schrems regarding Facebook's processing of his personal data from its Irish subsidiary to servers in the US. Schrems complained that "in the light of the revelations made in 2013 by Edward Snowden concerning the activities of the United States intelligence services (in particular the National Security Agency (‘the NSA’)), the law and practice of the United States do not offer sufficient protection against surveillance by the public authorities." The ECJ held the Safe Harbour Principles to be invalid, as they did not require all organizations entitled to work with EU privacy-related data to comply with it, thus providing insufficient guarantees. US federal government agencies could use personal data under US law, but were not required to opt in. The court held that companies opting in were "bound to disregard, without limitation, the protective rules laid down by that scheme where they conflict with national security, public interest and law enforcement requirements."[1]