Aftermath of Snowden

A few months ago, the European Union invalidated a 15-year old agreement, known as Safe Harbor, which allowed businesses to move Europeans’ data, such as payroll information, to servers in the U.S. The court ruled that Europeans’ data was insufficiently protected when transferred to the U.S., where it could be exposed to national intelligence services. Negotiations between the United States and the EU have been going on for around two years after officials demanded changes to the agreement following Edward Snowden’s disclosures of the NSA.

Among the issues that still need to be addressed, the commissioner said that the EU was still looking for clear conditions and limits to the extent to which U.S. intelligence services have access to Europeans’ personal data. She also said that the new deal would establish an annual review mechanism run by authorities on both sides that would monitor whether law enforcement and national security services complied with limits on access to Europeans’ data. This will transform the system from a cloudy, self-reporting one to an oversight system that is more responsive and backed up by significant enforcement, including sanctions.

It is important to note that although the Snowden disclosures have impacted public opinion about government surveillance in some ways, they haven’t caused a major shift. Different polls are worded in different ways and therefore suggest different things. But the overall sense is that public opinion has always been roughly divided on U.S. government surveillance and continues to be roughly divided after Snowden. Until now, the volume and diversity of Snowden’s information has muddled his message and resulted in a far smaller impact on politics that pro-Snowden fans initially thought. In fact, this is the first time that Snowden’s revelations had a significant impact on governmental policy (it only took two years…).

The different parliaments of the world are beginning to respond to the public discourse of pro and anti Snowden critics. Lack of trust between the world’s economies is a slippery slope and can lead to unpredictable market fluctuations. Some member states, such as Germany, want to take the EU’s decision to the next level by lobbying that the only way to remain unaffected by the legal and political consequences of the deal is to only store personal data on EU-based servers. This could significantly hinder the potential growth and innovation of future companies. If one restriction gets passed on to law, it is only a matter of time before similar restrictions spill over to noncommercial sectors as well.

In order to repair the obvious tear in global trust, I think it’s crucial that we ask ourselves what government is. Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it’s entirely the opposite for governments; their powers are exactly what we grant them. The implicit social contract that justifies our submission to the actions of government is strong enough to mend breaches by either side. If policy makers view trust as transparency, then is that really trust? It’s like telling someone that you’ll only trust them as long as they provide proof of everything they did. A system like this is slow and ineffective. Unfortunately, it will most likely take years before trust is restored and the more I think about it, the less convinced I get that the trust ever existed.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/29/germany-hardens-line-on-u-s-data-transfers/?mod=ST1