15 Amendments of Jan Philipp ALBRECHT related to 2018/2645(RSP)
Amendment 3 #
Citation 10 a (new)
- having regard to the letter of the Chair of the Article 29 Working Party on Section 702 of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 11 April 2018,
Amendment 14 #
Recital L
L. whereas the Article 29 Working Party has identified a number of important unresolved issues of significant concern, regarding both the commercial issues and those relating to the access by the U.S. public authorities to data transferred to the U.S. under the Privacy Shield (either for law enforcement or national security purposes) that need to be addressed by both the Commission and the U.S. authorities; whereas it has requested to set up immediately an action plan to demonstrate that all these concerns will be addressed, and at the latest at the second joint review before 25 May 2018;
Amendment 15 #
Recital N
N. whereas, an action for annulment by La Quadrature du Net and Others v Commission (Case T-738/16) and a referral by the Irish High Court on the Schrems II case have been brought in front of the European Court of Justice; that the referral takes note that mass surveillance is still going on and analyses whether there is effective remedy in US law for EU citizens whose personal data is transferred to the United States;
Amendment 16 #
Recital O
O. whereas on 11 January 2018 the US Congress has reauthorised and amended Section 702 of FISA for six years without addressing the concerns of the joint review report of the Commission and the opinion of the Article 29 Working Party;
Amendment 20 #
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Highlights the persisting weaknesses of the Privacy Shield as regards the respect of fundamental rights of data subjects; and underlines the increasing risk that the Court of Justice of the EU may invalidate Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 on the Privacy Shield;
Amendment 22 #
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the improvements compared to the Safe Harbour agreement, including the insertion of key definitions, stricter obligations related to data retention and onward transfers to third countries, the creation of an Ombudsperson to ensure individual redress and independent oversight, checks and balances ensuring the rights of data subjects (PCLOB), external and internal compliance reviews, more regular and rigorous documentation and monitoring, the availability of several ways to pursue legal remedy, prominent role for national DPAs in the investigation of claims; acknowledges that the European Commission is of the view that the U.S. authorities have put in place the necessary structures and procedures to ensure the correct functioning of the Privacy Shield;
Amendment 27 #
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges the recentRegrets that it has taken so long to designation ofe two additional Members coupled with theand to nomination ofe the Chairman of the PCLOB and calls on the Senate to ratify the names so as to start works without delay;
Amendment 46 #
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Is seriously concerned about the change in the terms of service of Facebook for non-EU users outside the United States and Canada who so far have enjoyed rights under EU data protection law, and who now have to accept Facebook U.S. instead of Facebook Ireland as the data controller; considers that this constitutes a transfer of personal data of approximately 1.5 billion users to a third country; seriously doubts that such an unprecedented large- scale limitation of the fundamental rights of users of a de-facto monopoly platform is what was intended with the Privacy Shield; calls on EU data protection authorities to investigate this matter;
Amendment 48 #
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Welcomes and supports the calls for the US legislator to move towards an omnibus privacy and data protection act;
Amendment 49 #
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls its concerns about the lack of guarantees in the Privacy Shield for automated-decision making/profiling, which produce legal effect or significantly affect the individual; acknowledges the intention of the Commission to order a study to collect factual evidence and further assess the relevance of automated decision-making for data transfers under the Privacy Shield; takes note in this regard of the indication from the joint review that the findings gathered seem to indicate that none of the data transferred under the Privacy Shield are processed through automated decision making systems but deplores that, according to the WP29, the feedback from the companies remained very general, leaving unclear whether these assertions correspond to the reality of all companies adhering to the Privacy Shield;
Amendment 53 #
Paragraph 13
13. Reiterates its concern that the Privacy Shield principles do not follow the EU model of consent-based processing, but even allow for opt-out / right to object only in very specific circumstances; therefore recommends, in the light of the joint review, that the DoC provides more precise guidance as regards essential principles of the Privacy Shield such as the Choice Principle, the Notice Principle, onward transfers, controller-processor’s relation and access, which are much more aligned with the rights of the data subject under Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
Amendment 56 #
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Reiterates its concerns about the rejection by Congress in March 2017 of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services", which in practice eliminates broadband privacy rules that would have required Internet Service Providers to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other companies; considers that this is yet another threat to privacy safeguards in the United States;
Amendment 62 #
Paragraph 15
15. Regrets that the U.S. did not seize the opportunity of the recent reauthorization of FISA Section 702 to include the safeguards provided in PPD-28; calls for evidence ensuring that data collection under FISA Section 702 is not indiscriminate and access is not conducted on a generalised basis (bulk collection) in contrast with the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights; regrets that the reauthorisation of Section 702 contains several amendments that however are merely procedural and do not address these most problematic issues as also raised by the Article 29 Working Party;
Amendment 72 #
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that a more balanced solution would have been to strengthen the existing international system of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) in view of encouraging international and judicial cooperation; reiterates that, as for instance set out in Article 48 of Regulation (EU) 679/2016 (the General Data Protection Regulation), mutual legal assistance and other international agreements are the preferred mechanism to enable access to personal data overseas;
Amendment 84 #
Paragraph 24
24. Is concerned as to whetherthat the current Privacy Shield arrangement does not provides the adequate level of protection required by Union data protection law and the EU Charter as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.