What the Schrems decision means in the US and Europe.
summary
Explains why the CJEU voids Safe Harbor: mass, generalized Upstream collection and company-assisted PRISM queries make EU data transfers an intrusion into the essence of privacy; U.S. law under Section 702 (Upstream and PRISM) lacks effective individual remedies, strict purpose limits, and meaningful ex‑ante judicial authorizations. Compares UK draft Investigatory Powers Bill and France’s state‑of‑emergency derogations, flags pending ECJ/Strasbourg cases (Sweden/UK), and shows litigation plus national reform are both needed — watch if you want concrete legal tests and program-level implications.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (27)
- 0:00Intro
- 4:02What are the implications
- 10:07US and UK surveillance
- 12:59Acquisition
- 13:43Upstream
- 14:24Prism
- 15:18Presidential Policy Directive 28
- 15:48Key passages from the judgment
- 17:46What does this mean for the US
- 19:06UK Investigatory Powers Bill
- 20:05EU competence
- 22:06UK law
- 23:11NSA Inquiry Committee
- 24:03US Germany Relations
- 25:41transatlantic cyber dialogue
- 27:19the Schrems decision
- 30:40more transparency
- 33:35European perspective
- 33:57French perspective
- 42:04State of emergency
- 45:07Mutual recognition
- 46:11Strasburg
- 47:19European Court
- 49:33The European Court of Human Rights
- 51:01Content vs Metadata
- 52:35German Reform
- 58:27Directive 200258
related talks
45mData Privacy Legislation and the Impact on SRE
01h 02mAN EXPERT TAKE ON SCHREMS II – FROM THE EXPERTS FROM SCHREMS II
01h 00mAn Existential Crisis for Global Data Flows: Privacy and Security Issues
19mUse of Cloud and Other Services in the Context of Schrems II
58mGlobal Data Flows and Perspective – Keynote & Panel
34mInternational Data Transfer After Schrems II - Facing the Risk?
01h 20mThe Transatlantic Debate
01h 09mREGULATION OF GLOBAL DATA FLOWS: A STORY OF THE IMPOSSIBLE?