MEPs tear up Biden’s Privacy Shield successor
The Executive Order of the US President is intended to better protect Europeans from American secret services and thus pave the way for simple transatlantic data traffic. But that’s not enough, say members of the European Parliament.
Birgit Sippel from the SPD sees the executive order as progress. However, she criticizes the fact that the USA, despite the apparent political will to develop a successor to the Privacy Shield, does not tackle the problem at the root and change its surveillance legislation. In her opinion, “further changes in the law in the USA” are needed to meet the requirements of the ECJ.
Alexandra Geese, Member of Parliament for the Greens, describes the improvements to a judicial remedy as “window dressing”. Geese’s group colleague Patrick Breyer, a politician from the Pirate Party, criticizes the lack of judicial enforceability of the decree, which, unlike a law, cannot be enforced.
Moritz Körner from the FDP also comes to the conclusion that the executive order does not justify an adequacy decision because it does not resolve the data protection problems in the USA. Instead, the US government made cosmetic changes, serving up a “political fig leaf.” His conclusion: “Old wine in new bottles”.
Körner’s Dutch parliamentary colleague Sophie in ‘t Veld would also bet on Max Schrems if he went to court again. In her eyes, the Commission is currently trying to buy time.
Source: “Window dressing” and “empty words”: MEPs tear up Biden’s Privacy Shield successor
