Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Welcome! Log in to stay connected and make the most of your experience.

Input clean

Privacy and Security after the Paris Attacks

Twelve days after the Paris attacks, I was waiting for a flight at London's Heathrow Airport, which seemed to be running with its customary sedate orderliness despite Brussels being on "lockdown" and police raids still taking place in Paris and Belgium.  While checking online for the latest developments in the U.S. and EU's negotiations for a replacement for the recently struck-down Safe Harbor program, I came across a notice that, due to security concerns, a prominent international privacy professionals' organization had decided to cancel its annual European Congress scheduled to take place in Brussels beginning in late November. Notably, the cancelled congress was to have featured Max Schrems, the Austrian law student whose complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner ultimately resulted in the Safe Harbor program being struck down by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The irony was palpable: Privacy advocates who had celebrated the CJEU's decision that EU privacy rights trump mass surveillance-based intelligence activities were unable to gather safely in Brussels due to a state of emergency that the media, at least, were attributing, in large part, to failures of European intelligence to detect communications among terrorists that implicitly would have required some form of mass collection and analysis of personal data.

As many readers know, Schrems had complained that Facebook Ireland's transfer of his personal data to the U.S. violated his privacy rights under EU law because, once in the U.S., his data was allegedly subject to access by the National Security Agency (NSA) via PRISM.  The CJEU agreed.  The precise reasoning of the Schrems decision may seem somewhat opaque to U.S. readers, however, because it is rooted in notions of "fundamental rights" under the EU's Charter of Human Rights and prior case law elaborating limits on how such rights can be restricted.  Privacy is one of the fundamental rights under the Charter.  

Keep reading...Show less
Access all of The Cipher Brief’s national security-focused expert insight by becoming a Cipher Brief Subscriber+ Member.

Related Articles

The Golden Dome is Missing a Key Focus

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE / OPINION – On January 27, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at defending the U.S. against an attack by [...] More

Getting NATO to Be Able to 'Fight Tonight'

EXPERT Q&A — Last week’s NATO summit in The Hague was largely seen as a success, with all members (except Spain) agreeing to raise the alliance’s [...] More

Report for Tuesday, July 1, 2025

8:18 America/Chicago Tuesday, July 1 [...] More

Covering the Blaze the World Forgot

BOOK REVIEW: Fuji Fire: Sifting Ashes of a Forgotten U.S. Marine Corps TragedyBy Chas Henry / Potomac BooksReviewed by: Bill HarlowThe Reviewer — [...] More

The Math Behind Trump's $1 Trillion Defense Budget

OPINION — “The President's FY ‘26 [Fiscal Year 2026] National Defense Budget requests $1.01 trillion, which is a 13 percent increase from FY '25 [...] More

An Urgent Call to Close the Loopholes on Chips and China

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE / OPINION -- The core lessons from the Cold War should guide us as we face the new “Axis of Aggressors” today. First among these, [...] More

Report for Monday, June 30, 2025

8:29 America/Chicago Monday, June 30 [...] More

A Good NATO Summit, Though Russia Won a Round

EXPERT Q&A — NATO leaders convened in The Hague this week for a summit aiming to strengthen the alliance's defenses, with the ever encroaching threat [...] More

NATO Wins Will Have an Impact

CIPHER BRIEF EXPERT Q&A — NATO leaders convened at The Hague this week and agreed to raise the alliance’s defense spending target to 5% GDP, marking [...] More