Europe’s top court ruled Tuesday that data stored on U.S. servers isn’t adequately protected because of government spying, a giant blow to companies such as Facebook and Google that had relied on a 15-year-old data-sharing agreement with the European Union and now may be forced to change the way they handle private data and user records.
The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union said in a ruling Tuesday that the arrangement contained within the Data Protection Act has failed to properly protect the privacy rights of EU residents, as shown by national security disclosures made by former U.S. government contractor Edward Snowden.
“Today’s judgment is an important step toward upholding Europeans’ fundamental rights to data protection,” said European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans. The court said it fears Europeans’ personal information could be improperly accessed by American intelligence agencies.
The ruling was the latest to show a deep gulf between European and U.S. regulators over the handling of data in the digital age, with President Obama’s spokesman and top lawmakers expressing deep concern about the ruling’s impact of U.S. firms.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the decision, handed down by the European Court of Justice on Tuesday, is based on faulty information about personal privacy protections in the U.S.
“We’re disappointed the court has struck down an agreement that since 2000 has proved to be critical in both protecting privacy and fostering economic growth in the United States and the European Union,” Mr. Earnest said.
On Capitol Hill, a bipartisan group of six top members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked for a briefing from the Commerce Department on the fallout from the ruling for some of America’s most successful Web-based corporate powerhouses.
“The ripple of uncertainty caused by today’s decision is cause for concern as digital data flows have become a bedrock of commerce,” the representatives wrote. “We must be mindful of any decision that threatens U.S. jobs and the strong commercial ties between our country and the European Union.”
Supporters say the “safe harbor” agreement has enabled companies to transmit personal user information between computers in the EU and U.S. without running afoul of local privacy laws. But following leaks attributed to Mr. Snowden, a former analyst with the National Security Agency, Austrian law student Max Schrems filed a suit alleging that U.S. official snooping compromises the personal information of Europeans who send their data to American-based sites such as Facebook.
“The judgment makes it clear that U.S. businesses cannot simply aid U.S. espionage efforts in violation of European fundamental rights,” said Mr. Schrems, 28, following the court’s decision.
The decision means that countries within the EU can now decide independently if they want to establish their own rules and regulations over how American companies handle the data of European users.
“We expect that a suspension of Safe Harbor will negatively impact Europe’s economy, hurt small- and medium-sized enterprises and the consumers who use their services, the most,” Christian Borggreen, the Europe director of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. The association is a trade group that represents Google, among others.
AmCham EU, which represents U.S. companies across all sectors in the EU, said the ruling could have serious implications for economic activity.
Reacting to the court’s decision with his newly-launched Twitter account on Tuesday, Mr. Snowden said the Safe Harbor agreement had been “abused” in the U.S. under an interpretation of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provision that “allowed a U.S. official to authorize spies to monitor people without court orders.”
The FISA law “allows NSA to intercept communications on the basis of class-based certifications signed by the [attorney general] instead of court orders,” Mr. Snowden wrote. “Surveillance of an ordinary German citizen does not involve demonstrating probable cause to a court or even a judge.”
⦁ This article was based in part on wire service reports.
• Andrew Blake can be reached at ablake@washingtontimes.com.
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.