1 / 8

How Technology is Prompting US/EU Tension on Mutual Legal Assistance

How Technology is Prompting US/EU Tension on Mutual Legal Assistance. Peter Swire Huang Professor Law and Ethics Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business Senior Counsel, Alston & Bird LLP Emory Law School Thrower Symposium February 11, 2016. Overview.

norris
Download Presentation

How Technology is Prompting US/EU Tension on Mutual Legal Assistance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How Technology is Prompting US/EU Tension on Mutual Legal Assistance Peter Swire Huang Professor Law and Ethics Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business Senior Counsel, Alston & Bird LLP Emory Law School Thrower Symposium February 11, 2016

  2. Overview • Changes in global communications create challenges • Cross-border data flows common and increasing for cybercrime, other crimes, cybersecurity, and national security • Law enforcement has large national security implications, especially for counter-terrorism • Criminal law is part of “all tools” approach for counter-terrorism and national security • Strict US privacy law creates obstacles to EU requests for data • Strict EU privacy law creates obstacles to US requests for data • What are we to do?

  3. Research context for this talk/paper • Research project on mutual legal assistance (with Justin Hemmings) • “Stakeholders in Reform of the Global System on Mutual Legal Assistance,” http://ssrn.com/abstract=2696163 • “Mutual Legal Assistance in an Era of Globalized Communications: The Analogy to the Visa Waiver Program,” http://ssrn.com/abstract=2728478 • Research and policy work on Safe Harbor/Schrems/EU (with DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo): • “US Surveillance Law, Safe Harbor, and Reforms Since 2013”, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2709619 • Today’s project: bringing the two parts together

  4. Why UK and Others Want Direct Access to Data/Evidence Held in the US • Announcement last week of UK/US agreement that, if enacted, would enable UK to go directly to providers in US for stored records, wiretaps, and national security wiretaps • Have been working with industry/civil society/academic group on these issues, to assure privacy/human rights rules for these • Stored records: UK victim, UK suspects, email or social network records held in US (law enforcement) • Wiretaps: Alice in UK emails/Skypes Bob in UK; it is encrypted, but may be plaintext at server in US (law enforcement) • National security investigations: UK investigation, and don’t want to necessarily share it with NSA; evidence accessed in US

  5. US Privacy Law is Stricter than EU • US Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) stricter in many respects than law enforcement rules in other countries: • Judicial oversight of request • Probable cause, or almost (reasonable and articulable suspicion) • Notice to service provider of the basis of the request • 1st Amendment: • Don’t provide evidence for hate speech, blasphemy, etc. • Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties • Careful review in US DOJ Office of International Affairs • Big delays, averaging 10 months even for successful requests • EU perspective: • LOTS of evidence held in US by global service providers • US won’t provide vital evidence, even where EU victims, crimes, suspects

  6. EU Privacy Law is Stricter than US • US seeks to export data/evidence from EU, for many reasons • Commerce – Safe Harbor, global companies and services • Law enforcement/national security – we are allies • Strict EU privacy laws • 1998 Directive, and new General Data Protection Regulation • Schrems ECJ case in October, struck down Safe Harbor • US/EU negotiations about stricter EU privacy rules • Privacy Shield – commercial and some foreign intelligence • Umbrella agreement – new US promises on data uses and downstream disclosures when receive from EU • US perspective: there must be limits to EU insistence on changing US practices

  7. Mutually Assured Frustration • Human rights advocates on both sides of the Atlantic can’t imagine lowering their standards • US: “You have no judges and no probable cause!” • EU: “You have no comprehensive privacy law like ours and lack legal structure for downstream uses!” plus “The NSA makes the US an unsafe place for our data!” • In our era of global communications, blaming each other and blocking legitimate data flows among allies not the right way to proceed • New agreements have to be effective and also follow privacy and human rights laws and norms

  8. Some Thoughts on the Way Forward • Clearly describe the situation (a main goal of our research project) • Technology – why so many new data flows and challenges • Law – why each side distrusts the other’s approach • Educate the elites who are prone to criticize any reform • Identify concrete reforms that enable data flows while honoring core legal principles of each country • Consider how to expand beyond the “club” of US and EU, to address legal, privacy, and human rights challenges for global data flows

More Related