Talk:International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles

Applications
The article is not clear on the applications of this law. I was trying to determine how this law relates to private health information being shared in research, such as hospitals giving de-identified statistics to researchers.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Patriot act controversy?
I feel like this is relevant to the discussion of safe harbour as it is a major issue for European organisations wishing to use American services i.e. Microsoft admits Patriot Act can access EU-based cloud data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.175.101 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Invalidation
The Safe Harbour decision has been invalidated [http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/schrems-judgment.pdf Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 117/15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daurnimator (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the Safe Harbour decision is distinct from the principles described in this article, which were issued by the US Department of Commerce. The Commission found that these principles (which are cited in the Annex of the decision) "are considered to ensure an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the Community to organisations established in the United States". It is this decision that was invalidated by the Court of Justice, not the principles themselves. The Court cannot invalidate an act of the US Department of Commerce. It even mentions explicitly under point 98 of its decision that there is no need to examine the content of the safe harbour principles. See also the Q&A after the press conference by First Vice President Timmermans and Commissioner Jourova here in which the latter states, answering the question "is the safe harbor working right now?", "it exists now" for the approximately 4,000 companies which voluntary subscribed to the principles. Woodcutterty (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

British vs American spelling
noticed the discrepancy of British vs American spelling of "harbour" vs "harbor" in the page title today. whoever started the page, and all who came after, didnt use the original EU spelling. its british in the sources of course, but mixed throughout the page.

Page move ?--Wuerzele (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Both spellings are used in official documentation and on official websites, so I have included both spellings in the opening sentence. There is no case for a page move to " ... Safe Harbour ...". The word "international" does not form part of official titles, although it serves here to describe the principles. Arguably the word "International" should be removed from the article title? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know there are US documents with the harbor spelling . agree with BobKilcoyne no case for page move, agree the word international is weird -is not part of official title.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a view on dropping the word 'International' from the title? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should change it to United States-European Union...., as on the US-EU relations page United_States–European_Union_relations. Seniorexpat (talk)

This title would not be appropriate in view of the Swiss-US content (Switzerland is non-EU) - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, then we could change it to Transatlantic Safe Harbor... with a water metaphor as in Transatlantic_relations. Seniorexpat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating with events
We should probably change the tense throughout here, now that it's effectively been replaced by the new "EU–US Privacy Shield" — which always seems to be named that way round, as far as I can see. (We should, imho, also make spelling be consistent — it was an American agreement, providing a safe harbour for American companies and, as such, I've only ever seen it spelt in US English, even in British documents. Certainly, within the Open Rights Group (on whose board I sit), we've always tried to be consistent with the US spelling as a proper noun.) Either way, it no longer is anything, and now quite definitely was. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The third paragraph and the section "Citizen complaint" are current. All else would have to be subjected to an update of tense. Seniorexpat (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)