54
3.5
conclusIon
Borderless cloud computing technologies are exacerbating existing tensions between EU and US approaches to data privacy. On the one hand, a
series of European initiatives are progressively exercising a centripetal
force on data held by companies operating in the EU. Their main objective would be to preserve Europe’s digital sovereignty by guaranteeing the
respect of European fundamental rights and preventing foreign law
enforcement and intelligence agencies from accessing personal data of EU
citizens and residents. On the other hand, foreign countries are unilaterally adopting legislation requiring national corporations to disclose data
stored in Europe, in this way bypassing jurisdictional boundaries grounded
in physical data location. Both the US and Chinese recently adopted statutes represent two paradigmatic examples of this trend, and clearly highlight how a conflict between European rules and foreign laws is emerging.
From a European standpoint, it is therefore evident that data localisation alone cannot represent the universal remedy for all the existing risks.
In a globalised digital environment, even investigating about a domestic
crime may likely entail accessing data held in different jurisdictions.
Erecting permanent barriers to the free flow of data could eventually
amount to a Sisyphean labour, difficult and ultimately futile. For this reason, enhancing cooperation and establishing more functional agreements
with third states, making sure that the protection of digital rights becomes
a shared concern transnationally and globally, still seems to be the best
choice for the EU.
references
Abraha, H. H. (2019). How Compatible Is the US “CLOUD Act” with Cloud
Computing? A Brief Analysis. International Data Privacy Law, 9, 207–215.
https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz009.
Albrecht, J. P. (2016). How the GDPR Will Change the World. European Data
Protection Law Review, 2(3), 287–289.
Bender, D. (2016). Having Mishandled Safe Harbor, Will the CJEU Do Better
with Privacy Shield? A US Perspective. International Data Privacy Law, 6(2),
117–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw005.
Bradford, A. (2012). The Brussels Effect. Northwestern University Law Review,
107(1), 1–67.
Bygrave, L. A. (2014). Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
E. CELESTE AND F. FABBRINI
3.5
conclusIon
Borderless cloud computing technologies are exacerbating existing tensions between EU and US approaches to data privacy. On the one hand, a
series of European initiatives are progressively exercising a centripetal
force on data held by companies operating in the EU. Their main objective would be to preserve Europe’s digital sovereignty by guaranteeing the
respect of European fundamental rights and preventing foreign law
enforcement and intelligence agencies from accessing personal data of EU
citizens and residents. On the other hand, foreign countries are unilaterally adopting legislation requiring national corporations to disclose data
stored in Europe, in this way bypassing jurisdictional boundaries grounded
in physical data location. Both the US and Chinese recently adopted statutes represent two paradigmatic examples of this trend, and clearly highlight how a conflict between European rules and foreign laws is emerging.
From a European standpoint, it is therefore evident that data localisation alone cannot represent the universal remedy for all the existing risks.
In a globalised digital environment, even investigating about a domestic
crime may likely entail accessing data held in different jurisdictions.
Erecting permanent barriers to the free flow of data could eventually
amount to a Sisyphean labour, difficult and ultimately futile. For this reason, enhancing cooperation and establishing more functional agreements
with third states, making sure that the protection of digital rights becomes
a shared concern transnationally and globally, still seems to be the best
choice for the EU.
references
Abraha, H. H. (2019). How Compatible Is the US “CLOUD Act” with Cloud
Computing? A Brief Analysis. International Data Privacy Law, 9, 207–215.
https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz009.
Albrecht, J. P. (2016). How the GDPR Will Change the World. European Data
Protection Law Review, 2(3), 287–289.
Bender, D. (2016). Having Mishandled Safe Harbor, Will the CJEU Do Better
with Privacy Shield? A US Perspective. International Data Privacy Law, 6(2),
117–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw005.
Bradford, A. (2012). The Brussels Effect. Northwestern University Law Review,
107(1), 1–67.
Bygrave, L. A. (2014). Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
E. CELESTE AND F. FABBRINI