12 Amendments of Jan Philipp ALBRECHT related to 2016/3018(RSP)
Amendment 1 #
Citation 6 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council of 10 January 2017 on Exchanging and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World1a; _________________ 1a COM(2017)07, 10.01.2017
Amendment 2 #
Citation 6 b (new)
– having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 21 December 2016 in Cases C-203/15 Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen and C-698/15 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and Others1a ; _________________ 1a EU:C:2016:970
Amendment 7 #
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield contains significant improvements regarding the clarity of standards compared to the former EU- U.S. Safe Harbour and that U.S. organisations self- certifying adherence to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield will have to comply with highclearer data protection standards than under Safe Harbour;
Amendment 23 #
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Specifically notes the significant difference between the protection provided by Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC and the “notice and choice” principle of the Privacy Shield arrangement, as well as the considerable differences between Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC and the “data integrity and purpose limitation” principle of the Privacy Shield arrangement; points out that instead of the need for a legal basis (such as consent or contract) that applies to all processing operations, the data subject rights under the Privacy Shield Principles only apply to two narrow processing operations (disclosure and change of purpose) and only provide for a right to object (“opt-out”);
Amendment 28 #
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes that only a fraction of the U.S. organisations that have joined Privacy Shield have chosen to use an EU data protection authority for the dispute resolution mechanism; is concerned that this constitutes a disadvantage for EU citizens when trying to enforce their rights;
Amendment 34 #
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that in in its judgment of 21 December 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the Charter of Fundamental Rights “must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provides for the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication”; points out that the bulk surveillance in the U.S. therefore does not provide for an essentially equivalent level of the protection of personal data and communications;
Amendment 36 #
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Is alarmed by the recent revelations about bulk surveillance done by Yahoo on all emails reaching its servers, on behalf of the NSA and the FBI, as late as 2015, which is two years after the revelations by Edward Snowden and one year after Presidential Policy Directive 28 was adopted; sees this as a reason to strongly doubt the assurances brought by the Director of National Intelligence Office; points out that the new U.S. President can unilaterally repeal or amend PPD-28;
Amendment 40 #
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Is equally alarmed by the new Raw SIGINT Availability Procedures under Executive Order 12333 of 12 January 20171a, which give U.S. intelligence agencies much broader access to raw communications data collected by the NSA; points out that signals intelligence data collections under EO 12333 take place without warrants or court approval; _________________ 1a https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/ RawSIGINTGuidelines-as-approved- redacted.pdf
Amendment 42 #
Paragraph 10
10. Deplores that, neither the Privacy Shield Principles nor the letters of the U.S. administration providing clarifications and assurances demonstrate the existence of effective judicial redress rights for individuals in the EU whose personal data are transferred to an U.S. organisation under the Privacy Shield Principles and further accessed and processed by U.S. public authorities for law enforcement and public interest purposes, as required bywhich were emphasized by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 6 October 2015 as the essence of the fundamental right in article 47 of the Charter;
Amendment 48 #
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Is in summary not convinced that the improvements made since its Resolution of 26 May 2016 will be sufficient to prevent the European Court of Justice from invalidating Commission Implementing Decision (EU)2016/1250 on the Privacy Shield; is therefore concerned that this will undermine the overall trust in Commission Implementing Decisions on adequacy and thereby damage the Commission’s new strategy for exchanging and protecting data in a globalised world;
Amendment 53 #
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the Privacy Shield will fully comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, to be applied as from 16 May 2018, which includes either a full revision, including substantive changes in U.S. laws and practices, or a repeal of Commission Implementing Decision (EU)2016/1250, by then;
Amendment 63 #
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to ensure that for the conducting of the joint annual review, all the members of the team shall have full and unrestricted access to all documents and premises necessary for the performance of their task and that their independence in the performance of their tasks is ensured, including being entitled to issue dissident opinions in the final report of the joint review, which will be public and annexed to the joint report;