Our Clients could meet Mr. Di Resta and his team in the new seat of the Di Resta Lawyers Law Firm in Viale Mazzini, 123, our new seat is very close to the Appeal Courtï¿½of Rome and also to Civil Tribunal of Rome.
Here you can read an abstract of our article published by Henry Stwart publisher on SIM Swap Frauds.
Si riporta una breve intervista televisiva dell’avvocato Di Resta sul tema delle Sim Swap Fraud ossia le frodi telematiche che sfruttano le debolezze legate al dispositivo telefonico nell’internet banking.
Qui il video: https://youtu.be/yMv2lvtXcvE
Approvata la legge che estende ulteriormente i termine di conservazione dei dati di traffico telefonici e telematici portanto i termini di conservazione a 72 mesi in deroga all’art. 132 del Codice della Privacy. Per finalitï¿½ di lotta al terrorismo si ripercorre la strada della conservazione massiva dei dati di traffico degli italiani, come se la disponibilitï¿½ di immensi database sui cittadini consentisse anche l’immediata disponibilitï¿½ di dati utili per le indagini, equazione evidentemente non vera. La storia recente sul tema ha mostrato come la conservazione massiva sia inutile, si veda la storia relativa al decreto Pisanu. Questi i temi affrontati durante l’intervesta dell’avvocato Di Resta. Per maggiori dettaglio ï¿½
possibile ascolare l’intera intervista
nel link sottostante:
The article of Fabio Di Resta, Lecturer at Sapienza University of Rome and member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Data Protection and Privacy, has been recently published. To read the abstract see the link underneath:
Here you can find the contribution of the European Privacy Centre (EPCE) to the public consultation on the Data Protection Officer published by the Article 29 Working Group. Di Resta participated as the President of EPCE, click underneath to read more in detail:
The 2013 Communication by the
European Commission is confirmed as the action plan to draft the Privacy Shield and theï¿½Umbrella Agreement.
Here you can read all the
legal textsï¿½released by the European Commission today:
To read our previous comments on Privacy
Shield, click here:
Fabio Di Resta – Attorney, LL.M., Founding partner at Di Resta Lawyers, Member of the Board of Directors at the Master Privacy at the ï¿½Roma Treï¿½ University in Rome, Law Department
As is well-known, on October 6 2015, the European Court of Justice with the judgment C-362/14 declared the decision n. 520/2000/EC of the European Commission invalid, this approved the scheme of personal data transfer under the old Safe Harbour framework. The judgment confirmed the Commission’s approach since November 2013 to review the Safe Harbour arrangement, to ensure a sufficient level of data protection as required by EU law.
In its preliminary ruling, the Court recognized to Data Protection Authorities the power to evaluate and monitor the data flows protection of the state of destination (U.S.), and in particular, this power consists of analyzing all the relevant legal aspects to consider this “essentially equivalent” with the European Directive 95/46/EC.
Under the Data Protection law approach, the Court considered the actual U.S. legislation not compliant with the ï¿½essentially equivalent ï¿½ test and that ï¿½of
three fundamental rights: the right on personal data protection, on reserved personal and family communications and the right on effective juridical assistance ( articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU).
The impact of the judgment would have been enormous and bursting on the world digital economy, it should also be noted that it has influenced more than about 4,500 American businesses operating on Safe Harbour, including Internet giants such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo; in particular, until 2013ï¿½ the adherent companies were around 3,246, of these 51% used to transfer personal data from the E.U. to U.S. on the human resources purpose, meanwhile, 60% of these ones were businesses with less than 250 employees.
On 2 February the U.S. and EU Authorities, after having disputed on subject for months, have finally announced the new signed agreement which replaced the old Safe Harbour.
Under the new agreement called E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield, according to the official communication by the European Commission, the new international deal is based on three pillars:
- enforcement of strong obligations on adherent companies handling Europeansï¿½ personal data and implementing measures: although the self-certification system is maintained from the old Safe Harbour, the new agreement is reinforced with ï¿½robust obligationsï¿½ on data processings including publicity of these obligations, as well as the guarantees for the rights protection of European citizens under monitoring and supervision by the U.S. Department of Commerce. In line with the judgment of the Court of Justice, it is stated that any company handling human resources data from Europe has to be compliant with the decisions by European DPAs.
- clear safeguards and transparency obligations on U.S. government access for the Public Authorities: the US has given the E.U. assurances on the access for the public authorities and for the NSA, the exceptions for limited access must be only to the extent necessary and must be proportionate, any discriminate mass surveillance on the personal data transferred to the U.S. is to be rolled out. To regularly monitor the functioning of the arrangement there will be an annual joint review by the European Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, which will also include the issue of national security access, besides, national intelligence experts from the U.S. and European Data Protection Authorities are invited to it;
- effective protection of E.U. citizens’ rights with several redress possibilities: this is very much alike to the European data subjectsï¿½ rights, in fact, any European citizens can complain on companies (included the so-called subject access request); moreover, companies have deadlines to replay to complaints, European DPAs can refer complaints to the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission. In addition, Alternative Dispute Resolution will be free of charge. Moreover, a new Ombudsman will be created for complaints on possible access by national intelligence authorities.
Although a new deal has been announced and achieved with great difficulty, actually we should wait for the full text of the agreement to analyze preconditions and effective measures, but it is already clear that this agreement is compromise solution of the problem with little room for a rigorous approach of the application of the European law standards .
More in detail, the draft ï¿½adequacy decisionï¿½ still to be drawn up by European Commission, also through the involvement of WP29, this will happen within the next weeks, after this period we will see if the specific transparency requirements, safeguards and available redresses will be sufficient to the protection of Europeansï¿½ fundamental rights.
It appears clear that one requirement come first in order of priority, transparency requirement is a critical element in this agreement, without effective transparency no protection is possible, when European Commission says ï¿½strong obligationï¿½ this should be meant, firstly, as the obligation relating to adherent companies to the Privacy Shield to publish adequate privacy policies which should include privacy conditions of ï¿½any contracts adherent companies concluded with subcontractors, e.g. cloud computing servicesï¿½. Situations in which there were onward transfers from Safe Harbour self-certified companies to third parties acting as ï¿½agentsï¿½ needed notifications to Department of Commerce of privacy safeguards to minimize risks, according to European Commissionï¿½s statements (COM 847 final, 27.11.2013, page 18).
This position is fully coherent with the recent communication of Working Party Article 29 (WP29)which stated last 3 February that: ï¿½Processing should be based on clear, precise and accessible rules: this means that anyone who is reasonably informed should be able to foresee what might happen with her/his data where they are transferredï¿½.
Also the US Department of Commerce has recently published a briefing in which it has stressed that the importance of transparency obligations and has stated more in detail that the agreement brings ï¿½new contractual privacy protections and oversight for data transferred by participating companies to third parties or processed by those companiesï¿½ agents to improve accountability and ensure a continuity of protectionï¿½.
In general terms, on one hand, the “essentially equivalent” test should not be meant as a direct application of the European legislation on the U.S., but common legal requirements to guarantee European fundamental rights should be.
On the other hand, in respect of the Safe Harbour Agreement the solution adopted is a further step towards the alignment between the European and American legislation systems on data protection law, and last but not least this is the reply which provides legal certainty to the numerous enterprises operating in world digital economy.
In conclusion, it is to be considered that this political agreement will give an effective protection to any European citizens to the extent that Europeans will be timely and adequate informed from the companies which will be obliged to timely reply on the request to access their personal data, to fulfill this robust obligation could be not as easy as it could appear, taking also into account the involvement of the European DPAs whose decisions will be binding for the companies.
As is well-known, on October 6 2015, the European Court
of Justice with the judgment C-362/14 declared the decision n. 520/2000/EC of the European Commission invalid, this approved the scheme of personal data transfer under the old Safe Harbour framework. The judgment confirmed the Commission’s approach since November 2013 to review the Safe Harbour arrangement, to ensure a sufficient level of data protection as required by EU law.
Here you can
find the communication by European Commission:
Here you can find the communication by WP29: