You cannot give an irrevocable consent, because that would be attempting to
alienate a “human right.”
Jon Neiditz
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341
| My Profile | vCard
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
From: Mike O'Neill
[mailto: ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:21 AM
To: 'James Hazard'
Cc: Neiditz, Jon; 'WG UMA'; 'ProjectVRM list'
Subject: RE: [projectvrm] Re: [WG-UMA] The Death of Safe Harbor is the
Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity
Correct. Consent must be “freely given, specific and informed”. Even if the
basis is “legitimate interest” they still have the right to opt-out, by
automated means (if that is still in
the GDPR).
From: James Hazard
[mailto: ]
Sent: 06 October 2015 15:48
To: Mike O'Neill
< >
Cc: Neiditz, Jon
< >;
WG UMA
< >;
ProjectVRM list
< >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Re: [WG-UMA] The Death of Safe Harbor is the
Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity
So, roughly,
?/
"I consent to You taking the Specified Personal Information to the US. You
agree to: protect it, use it only for Specified Purposes, inform me of Leaks, and
Destroy it when no longer
needed for the Specified Purposes or I ask You to."
Can a person give non-revocable consent to use of data within EU?
/?
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Mike O'Neill
< >
wrote:
Consent must be “freely given”, so IMO it follows that it must be
revocable (with a “sunset”). Article 29 and many DPAs also have said that.
From: James Hazard
[mailto: ]
Sent: 06 October 2015 14:53
To: Neiditz, Jon
< >
Cc: WG UMA
< >;
ProjectVRM list
< >
Subject: [projectvrm] Re: [WG-UMA] The Death of Safe Harbor is the
Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity
Do you mean that consent of the person permits transfer of data, but
consent is necessarily revocable and data must be destroyed?
On Oct 6, 2015 3:40 PM, "Neiditz, Jon"
< >
wrote:
Why?
The Advocate General's opinion and the Court's decision both turn
on the inability of Safe Harbor to prevent surveillance. NO permitted basis
for data transfer
prevents surveillance, not Model Clauses, not Binding Corporate
Rules (BCRs). Logically, if probably not in immediate corporate and EU
national practice, the
only bulletproof basis for data transfer to the US is now the
ever-so-revocable CONSENT, which presumes no fictitious protection from
surveillance.
See also:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-morning-safe-harbor-dead-what-does-mean-now-later-jon-neiditz?trk=prof-post
Your thoughts?
Jon Neiditz
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341
| www.kilpatricktownsend.com
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within
the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the
sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain
confidential
attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of any of
the information contained in or attached to this transmission is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404
815 6500, and
destroy the original transmission and its attachments without
reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S.
federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein.
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
--
@commonaccord
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.