TOTAL: {[ getCartTotalCost() | currencyFilter ]} Update cart for total shopping_basket Checkout

The Privacy Advisor | BCRs Looking Attractive After Advocate General's Opinion on Safe Harbor? Here's Some Help Related reading: BCRs Gain Momentum with Article 29 WP Endorsement



Following the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Advocate General's opinion that the Safe Harbor agreement is "invalid" due to U.S. law enforcement access to EU citizen data, it doesn't seem too far a stretch to imagine companies worried about the future of Safe Harbor may start looking for alternatives, namely, binding corporate rules (BCRs). 

Even before the advocate general's opinion, BCRs were becoming an increasingly attractive data transfer mechanism70 firms have completed the process thus farpartly because the framework closely maps to APEC's cross-border privacy rules, so many organizations are obtaining the two in concert and increasing the geographic borders within which their organization's data may travel.

Advocate general opinions aren't binding but are followed by the ECJ about 85 percent of the time. If that has you worried about the future legality of Safe Harbor, here is a roundup of the IAPP's coverage of BCRs that may prove helpful in determining whether the mechanism is right for your organization and what to expect of the process. 

Look for continuing coverage and analysis of the BCR process from the IAPP Publications Team. 

1 Comment

If you want to comment on this post, you need to login.

  • comment Neil Riemann • Oct 6, 2015
    It's hard to see how the CJEU's concerns are addressed by BCRs or Model Contract Clauses. How will they preclude the government surveillance that resulted in today's opinion?