Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Cloud

6/20/2016
10:30 AM
Peter Merkulov
Peter Merkulov
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Privacy Shield: Can the US Earn the EUs Trust Post Apple vs. FBI?

Rebuilding the privacy framework for data transfer between the US and its European trading partners won't be easy but it's still a worthwhile effort.

When the European Union’s Article 29 Working Party sent the draft EU-US Privacy Shield data sharing and transfer agreement back for another round of edits and negotiation, the message was clear: there’s still more work to do to ensure data privacy.

In 2013, following Edward Snowden’s revelations of ongoing surveillance by United States intelligence agencies, trust in the US was severely damaged and proved to be the undoing of the previous trans-Atlantic data transfer agreement known as Safe Harbor. When lawmakers and citizens of the European Union discovered the extent of America’s data collection operations, something had to give—and it did. A lawsuit was filed, the Schrems Decision was reached and Safe Harbor was invalidated.

For anyone who follows issues of privacy and data protection closely, the Article 29 Working Party’s rejection of Privacy Shield was not a surprise. Hopes were high that the agreement might earn the approval of the EU’s privacy watchdogs and that a data trade framework might soon be in place that would help to rebuild broken trust. Today the future of Privacy Shield remains in doubt, and even as the Working Party began examining Privacy Shield’s language, the FBI was engaged in a high-profile and largely symbolic fight to force tech icon Apple to grant it access to an iPhone once owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

By now, we know the story. The FBI’s investigators failed in their own early attempts to unlock the device, attempted through the courts to compel Apple to create a program that would crack the phone’s security, then paid handsomely for a third-party to do the job for them so that they could access the data they needed for their investigation.

While it remains unclear whether there is any information of value to the Bureau on the phone, what does seem evident is that when the FBI wants the information it wants, it isn’t afraid to exert its power and influence in order to set a precedent. Yes, the FBI—and all of our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies—have a mandate to protect the public, but to wage such a public battle at a time when the European Union and the world are still deciding how much trust they can invest in us seems inopportune. Privacy-sensitive observers may not be comforted by what they’ve seen thus far.

Geopolitics & Trade

Privacy Shield is as much about geopolitics as it is about trade; U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker recently described the pact to the New York Times as an “agreement to make sure that people understood that their privacy would be protected. Trust in the Internet and trust in the ability to send data back and forth is fundamental to the global economy.” Pritzker said that Privacy Shield is an important part of the smooth transaction of $260 billion worth of privacy-centric, trans-Atlantic trade between the U.S. and our European partners.

Brand trust is a valuable asset. It’s easy to break down domes of trust, but it can be a long, difficult road to rebuild them. In a global economy, trust needs to be transferrable across international borders if companies want to tap into overseas markets. To do so successfully, companies must recognize that they are responsible for their own actions, and for building trust with their overseas customers and partners, no matter what agreements are in place. In the digital age that means investing in the tools required to protect data, which responsible companies are doing by spending millions of dollars to ensure that data is safe and secure. Research firm Gartner says total spending on information security last year eclipsed $75 billion.

In the U.S., companies are compelled to invest in systems and practices that comply with privacy and data security laws in order to protect the public. Technology developers are motivated to build products that give users, whether individuals or organizations, confidence that their privacy is secure. When federal agencies actively engage in activities that could be perceived by some as undermining trust in our national brand, what is the result? The debate as to whether either the FBI or Apple were in the right is not so clear-cut, but the ramifications of the episode could have long-term implications in regulatory policy and overall trust in both the tech industry and the US government.

It won’t be easy, but if Privacy Shield—in whatever form it eventually takes—is to stand up to the scrutiny of privacy advocates as the framework for trans-Atlantic data transfer, it will require all parties—including industry and federal agencies—to act in good faith and rebuild (and keep) the trust of our European trading partners. A long road is ahead of us; building and maintaining trust is never easy, but it is certainly a worthwhile task.

Related Content:

The Black Hat CISO Summit August 2 offers executive-level insights into the security technologies, processes and issues security execs need to keep pace with the speed of business today. Click here to register.

Peter Merkulov serves as chief technology officer at Globalscape. He is responsible for leading product strategy, product management, product marketing, technology alliances, engineering and quality assurance teams. Merkulov has more than 16 years of experience in the IT ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
PeterMerkulov
50%
50%
PeterMerkulov,
User Rank: Author
6/22/2016 | 3:19:51 PM
Re: They're all crooks
Whatever the differences between U.S. and EU privacy laws, Safe Harbor was challenged in court by Max Schrems following the Snowden disclosures and revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were accessing data considered private in Europe. It's important that both sides find a way to reconcile differences in approach in order to provide clarity for data sharing. Until such time as a new trans-Atlantic data transfer agreement is in place, however, U.S. companies must contend with that breakdown in trust by rising above the low bar of compliance and establish their own high standards of protection and management for the data entrusted to them.
Whoopty
50%
50%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
6/21/2016 | 7:44:17 AM
They're all crooks
While I'm sure some semblance of trust will begin to build again between the EU and US, that's not because of anything the US has done, it's because the politicians in the EU are little better. In the UK they are pushing privacy invading laws that are far more draconian than they have in the US, so it's hard to find anyone championing the real will of the people when it comes to not invading personal privacy. 
44% of Security Threats Start in the Cloud
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/19/2020
Zero-Factor Authentication: Owning Our Data
Nick Selby, Chief Security Officer at Paxos Trust Company,  2/19/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-9405
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
IBL Online Weather before 4.3.5a allows unauthenticated reflected XSS via the redirect page.
CVE-2020-9406
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
IBL Online Weather before 4.3.5a allows unauthenticated eval injection via the queryBCP method of the Auxiliary Service.
CVE-2020-9407
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
IBL Online Weather before 4.3.5a allows attackers to obtain sensitive information by reading the IWEBSERVICE_JSONRPC_COOKIE cookie.
CVE-2020-9398
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-25
ISPConfig before 3.1.15p3, when the undocumented reverse_proxy_panel_allowed=sites option is manually enabled, allows SQL Injection.
CVE-2015-5201
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-25
VDSM and libvirt in Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Hypervisor (aka RHEV-H) 7-7.x before 7-7.2-20151119.0 and 6-6.x before 6-6.7-20151117.0 as packaged in Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization before 3.5.6 when VSDM is run with -spice disable-ticketing and a VM is suspended and then restored, allows r...