Exploration of the adequacy of privacy protection law ...
summary
Panel reviews a survey of California law against EU adequacy criteria, finding concrete strengths (a constitutional privacy clause, breach‑notification model copied by 46 states, active Attorney General enforcement) and concrete gaps: no subject access right for commercial data, onward transfers unrestricted and federal preemption over major sectors. Adequacy requires law‑in‑action checks, court access on equal footing, independent oversight; process often takes ~2 years, may force legal amendments (New Zealand did), and companies face costly alternatives like SCCs or BCRs (BCR approval can take up to a year).
AI-written summary · about
chapters (9)
- 0:00Introduction
- 5:00California’s EU adequacy potential
- 9:39Adequacy implications for businesses
- 18:31How the European Commission evaluates adequacy
- 33:18The European Data Protection Supervisor’s perspective
- 42:19Academic view of California’s framework
- 53:40Q&A
- 1:08:06Future of adequacy decisions
- 1:14:47Closing remarks
related talks
56mBridging Borders: Towards the Interoperability & Convergence of Data Privacy Rules Globally
01h 16mData transfers between the EU and ASIA
01h 14mRegulatory choices and privacy consequences
01h 02mPeople, Industry & Government
58mGlobal Data Flows and Perspective – Keynote & Panel
51mPrivacy Past and Present: A Father-Daughter Look at Data Privacy Evolution
01h 09mREGULATION OF GLOBAL DATA FLOWS: A STORY OF THE IMPOSSIBLE?
52mData Protection and Privacy Development Around the World