Nsa updates aff Tech Leadership Advantage
Neg Safe Harbor Advantage
Download 335 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 1nc – at: advantage solvency
- Safe Harbor is beyond repair – false membership, lack of transparency, and no review process
- Circumvention
NegSafe Harbor AdvantageTTIP i/l turnTurn – free flowing info undermines the TTIP – external actors are concerned about US-EU internet dominanceAaronson, 4/13/15 – Research Professor at The George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs and the former Minerva Chair at the National War College (Susan, World Trade Review, “Why Trade Agreements are not Setting Information Free: The Lost History and Reinvigorated Debate over Cross-Border Data Flows, Human Rights and National Security”, //11) As of July 2014, trade officials are negotiating cross-border data flows in three very different trade agreements. The US and the 28 nations of the EU are negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP); the US and ten other nations bordering the Pacific are negotiating the Transpacific Partnership (TPP); and some 50 members of the WTO (including the 28 EU states) are negotiating the Trade in Services Agreement of the WTO (TISA).4 Although many government officials around the world want to encourage these data flows, many states have not responded positively to US and EU efforts to facilitate the free flow of information. Officials and citizens from these states worry about their ability to control information flows as well as their dependence on US companies to provide web services (which must comply with US rules on privacy and national security).5 They are also concerned that the US continues to dominate not only the Internet economy, but also Internet governance institutions in ways that benefit US interests.6 Meanwhile, some activists in the US and EU noted that both governments restricted information flows through its punitive approach to online copyright and hence was hypocritical (Aaronson with Townes, 2012: 9, fn 81). 1nc – at: advantage solvencyPolicies have already been reformed – those solve – prefer our evidence, it postdatesAaronson, 4/13/15 – Research Professor at The George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs and the former Minerva Chair at the National War College (Susan, World Trade Review, “Why Trade Agreements are not Setting Information Free: The Lost History and Reinvigorated Debate over Cross-Border Data Flows, Human Rights and National Security”, //11) US and EU trade and foreign policymakers recognized that if they wanted to include free flow of information provisions in TTIP they had to change course. First, the EU and the US set up a working group on privacy, which provided answers to EU questions about the reach, methods, and effectiveness of the NSA programs.68 Second, the US Department of Commerce took steps to show that Safe Harbor was effective, and US companies that violated these policies would be punished. The US Federal Trade Commission doubled enforcement actions against 14 companies that claimed to participate in the Safe Harbor Framework but had not renewed their certifications under the program.69 The US also reassured businesses that the US remained committed to a voluntary, rather than a top-down regulatory approach to privacy. The two trade giants agreed to develop an interoperable system for data protection. Specifically, they agreed to strengthen the Safe Harbor program for the exchange of personal data for commercial purposes, as they also negotiated a framework agreement which would apply to personal data transferred between the EU and the US for law enforcement purposes. The EU has insisted and US policymakers have reportedly concurred that the US grant EU citizens the same privacy rights as US citizens.70 While the EU’s approach might protect EU citizens and facilitate data exchange among the US and EU, it would do little for citizens of other nations. Nor did it clarify whether the US would view privacy regulations as legitimate exceptions to the free flow of information or address the broader issue of how to deal with the multiplicity of privacy strategies among US and EU trade partners. Safe Harbor is beyond repair – false membership, lack of transparency, and no review processTNS, 13 – Targeted News Service (“EU and US NGOs Respond to EU Date Safe Harbor Report: Safe Harbor Program Should be Suspended Until US Protects Online Privacy”, 11/27/13, ProQuest, //11) Director General of The European Consumer Organisation, Monique Goyens, commented: "The European Commission's report on the 'Safe Harbour' agreement confirms the longstanding concerns of consumer groups on both sides of the Atlantic. More than a decade after its establishment, the pact is riddled with problems. "This agreement claims to reassure EU and US consumers when their personal data is exchanged for commercial purposes, but it has now been shown to retain only a fig-leaf of credibility. In practice, it is riven with false claims of membership, the process is not transparent and many signatories' lack even a privacy policy. In the wake of all this, there has been absence of effective enforcement by regulatory authorities over the years. Recent events have highlighted the obvious imprudence of poorly designed data exchange agreements. The question now will be: 'is Safe Harbour beyond repair?' "The safety of European consumers' data needs to be paramount. Data flows must have a true harbour, not just a commercial port. US authorities may need to come to understand that Safe Harbour can no longer be used as a free pass for data exchange. "The European Commission's 13 Recommendations are a welcome address of many of the issues. Better enforcement is crucial and we're glad to see that being examined. But the ability of companies to self-certify as offering 'Safe Harbour' is unjustifiable and remains inexplicably outside the review. It is hard to see the purpose of proceeding without tackling such basic flaws and perhaps the time has come to put the Safe Harbour agreement to one side and move on. CircumventionSafe-Harbor will be circumventedWSGR, 13 – Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati: the premier provider of legal services to technology, life sciences, and growth enterprises worldwide (“Cloud Providers That Adhere to U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework Meet EU's Data Protection Adequacy Requirements, Says U.S. Commerce Department”, 5/6/13, https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-cloud-providers.htm, //11) While completing the required Safe Harbor application is relatively simple and quick, it can be easy for organizations to overlook the program's compliance requirements, including annual assessments and documentation of compliance. Given the increasing attention and focus by customers on vendor and supply chain management in this area, increased investment in privacy and data security-related controls may yield quick returns by enabling deals to close more quickly and efficiently. Moreover, with the FTC's prosecution of a number of entities that claimed they were Safe Harbor-certified even though their certifications had lapsed, technical compliance with the Safe Harbor has taken on greater significance. A benefit of the program is that it helps encourage organizations to routinely and annually re-evaluate their privacy and data protection practices and to do so systematically. Many organizations also rely on and work with outside third parties, including law firms, to assist in these efforts. Such assistance can provide valuable benchmarking information and guidance on best practices, as well as assist with risk management. not topicalSafe Harbor isn’t topical – not national security, federal, or US personsFPF, 13 – Future of Privacy Forum (“The US-EU Safe Harbor: An Analysis of the Framework’s Effectiveness in Protecting Personal Privacy”, December 2013, http://www.futureofprivacy.org/wp-content/uploads/FPF-Safe-Harbor-Report.pdf, //11) Scrutinizing the Safe Harbor over concerns about government access misconstrues the purpose of the Safe Harbor. The Safe Harbor is intended to bring US data practices in line with the EU Data Directive. The Directive does not apply to matters of national security or law enforcement.173 Article 3 of the Directive states: “This Directive shall not apply to the processing of personal data…[with respect to] operations concerning public security, defen[s]e, State security (including the economic well-being of the State when the processing operation relates to State security matters) and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law.” 174 Thus, the Safe Harbor always had been envisioned as protecting the privacy of EU citizens within only the commercial privacy context.175 It should come as no surprise then that the Safe Harbor specifically provides exceptions to the Safe Harbor’s privacy principles “to the extent necessary to meet national security, public interest, or law enforcement requirements.”176 Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 335 Kb. Share with your friends:
|