INJURYATWORKADVICE
No Result
View All Result
Saturday, January 23, 2021
  • Home
  • Injury At Work
  • Road Traffic Accidents
  • Health
  • Legal
  • Human Rights
  • Home
  • Injury At Work
  • Road Traffic Accidents
  • Health
  • Legal
  • Human Rights
No Result
View All Result
INJURYATWORKADVICE
No Result
View All Result
Home Legal

DOC Publishes FAQs on Schrems II Decision

by injuryatworkadvice_rdd0e1
August 1, 2020
in Legal
DOC Publishes FAQs on Schrems II Decision

The U.S. Division of Commerce has issued two new units of FAQs in mild of the Court docket of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) latest resolution to invalidate the EU-U.S. Privateness Defend in Schrems II. We beforehand reported on the Schrems II ruling and its implication for companies that switch private knowledge to the U.S. The brand new FAQs from the Division of Commerce tackle the impression of the choice on the EU-U.S. Privateness Defend framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privateness Defend framework.

Beneath is a abstract of the important thing factors from the new FAQs on the EU-U.S. Privateness Defend (“Privateness Defend”):

The brand new FAQs state that though (because of the Schrems IIruling) the Privateness Defend “is now not a legitimate mechanism to adjust to EU knowledge safety necessities when transferring private knowledge from the European Union to america . . . this resolution doesn’t relieve contributors within the EU-U.S. Privateness Defend of their obligations below the EU-U.S. Privateness Defend Framework.”

The FAQs additional state that the Division of Commerce will proceed to manage the Privateness Defend program, together with processing functions for self-certification and recertification and sustaining the Privateness Defend record.

The FAQs level to a July 21, 2020 assertion from the U.S. Federal Commerce Fee (“FTC”) noting that the FTC “proceed[s] to count on corporations to adjust to their ongoing obligations with respect to transfers made below the Privateness Defend Framework.”

As well as, the FAQs clarify that organizations that want to stay on the Privateness Defend record proceed to be required to yearly recertify to the Privateness Defend framework, together with by paying the annual processing charge. Organizations that want to withdraw from the Privateness Defend (1) should bear the prevailing formal withdrawal course of and take away public-facing representations about Privateness Defend participation from their web sites and different public paperwork, and (2) are topic to ongoing necessities associated to knowledge acquired below the Privateness Defend.

The brand new FAQs additionally point out that it’s the view of the Division of Commerce that continued participation within the Privateness Defend “demonstrates a severe dedication to guard private info in accordance with a set of privateness ideas that supply significant privateness protections and recourse for EU people.”

Relating to the Swiss-U.S. Privateness Defend, the up to date FAQs state that “[t]he Swiss-U.S. Privateness Defend Framework stays a legitimate mechanism to adjust to Swiss knowledge safety necessities when transferring private knowledge from Switzerland to america.” The Swiss-U.S. Privateness Defend FAQs additionally notice that on July 16, 2020, the Federal Knowledge Safety and Data Commissioner of Switzerland (“FDPIC”) issued a assertion that the “FDPIC has taken notice of the CJEU ruling. This ruling shouldn’t be straight relevant to Switzerland. The FDPIC will look at the judgement intimately and touch upon it sooner or later.”

Along with the small print listed above, the brand new FAQs from the Division of Commerce state that “[t]he United States stays dedicated to working with the EU to make sure continuity in transatlantic knowledge flows and privateness protections. The U.S. Division of Commerce has been and can stay in shut contact with the European Fee and European Knowledge Safety Board on this matter and hopes to have the ability to restrict the adverse penalties of the choice to the transatlantic knowledge flows which might be so very important to our respective residents, corporations, and governments.”

The European Knowledge Safety Board (“EDPB”) additionally has printed FAQs on the implications of the Schrems II case – learn our weblog publish concerning the EDPB FAQs.

 


Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Nationwide Regulation Assessment, Quantity X, Quantity 213

ShareTweetShareShare

Related Posts

Internet of Things Device Security Improvements Likely 2021
Legal

Internet of Things Device Security Improvements Likely 2021

December 27, 2020
Emerging Medical AI and 3D Printing Technologies in India [Podcast]
Legal

Emerging Medical AI and 3D Printing Technologies in India [Podcast]

December 27, 2020
China Opens 3-Year Pilot Foreign Patent Program
Legal

China Opens 3-Year Pilot Foreign Patent Program

December 26, 2020
Online Pharmacies and Telemedicine in India [Podcast]
Legal

Online Pharmacies and Telemedicine in India [Podcast]

December 26, 2020
California Prop 65 elists BPA as a Reproductive Toxicant
Legal

California Prop 65 elists BPA as a Reproductive Toxicant

December 26, 2020
Mexico Daily Minimum Wages Approved for 2021
Legal

Mexico Daily Minimum Wages Approved for 2021

December 26, 2020

Popular News

why are some people experiencing long-term fatigue?

why are some people experiencing long-term fatigue?

July 16, 2020
Court of Chancery Rules on Corporate Dissolutions

Court of Chancery Rules on Corporate Dissolutions

July 21, 2020
‘Hope’ isn’t mere wishful thinking – it’s a valuable tool we can put to work in a crisis

‘Hope’ isn’t mere wishful thinking – it’s a valuable tool we can put to work in a crisis

September 21, 2020
Baby and two adults taken to hospital after car flips over on motorway

Baby and two adults taken to hospital after car flips over on motorway

June 8, 2020
Carpenter who sliced off ends of fingers with SAW forced to wait EIGHT HOURS in A&E

Carpenter who sliced off ends of fingers with SAW forced to wait EIGHT HOURS in A&E

June 8, 2020
Builder accidentally fires nail gun into his own penis and gives himself an eye-watering injury

Builder accidentally fires nail gun into his own penis and gives himself an eye-watering injury

June 8, 2020
  • Home
  • Injury At Work
  • Road Traffic Accidents
  • Health
  • Legal
  • Human Rights

Copyright © 2020 Injuryatworkadvice

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Injury At Work
  • Road Traffic Accidents
  • Health
  • Legal
  • Human Rights

Copyright © 2020 Injuryatworkadvice