Where is the “covered provider,” and in particular the United States, and what can and should such a provider do to protect its own interests and those of its data users? “I think news feeds are extremely beneficial in keeping up with legislative changes. I have trained regularly to share a number of articles with our staff. Please keep up the good work. And the proof of the pudding is in the diet. Although the agreement has yet to enter into force, although it will soon enter into force, the progress towards similar agreements with the United States is remarkable. The extent to which the United States wishes to conclude an EU-wide agreement rather than dealing with individual states remains an important issue, particularly with regard to the independence of the judiciary in some Member States. All of these requirements are established by the acquisition of data by the British authorities, which, with the fundamental obligations that must be met, seem to create a robust system allowing data providers – called “covered suppliers” – to meet the legality of THE requirements of British and American law. And for there to be no doubt, the agreement seems to facilitate, at least at first glance, one-way traffic, where the party that sets the requirements is the United Kingdom. Given the market strength of U.S. companies providing communications and social media services, this is not at all surprising. The United Kingdom is the first state to implement an agreement called Snappily “Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data” or CLOUD Act, which will come into force in March 2018, to ensure that delays caused by the mutual legal aid process can be avoided as much as possible with respect to UK applications. Such delays have long been a plague for British investigators, particularly because of the key role played by communication data in the secret services and in the evidence in British criminal proceedings and the fact that much of this data is stored and processed in the United States by major US providers of communications and social media services.
As long-standing requirements of U.S. national law and the CLOUD Act itself, a key element is the protection that must be afforded to Americans, so that any U.K. request does not take effect when it attempts to speak to a U.S. person anywhere in the world or when attempting to attack a person in the United States. “Minimization” data is also required for U.S. people in situations where non-U.S. people are targeted. While this is a long-standing and well-understood concept in the United States, first with regard to telephony and, later, the practice of electronic surveillance, it is undoubtedly an abomination for British law enforcement and should be a real controversy as to practical functioning. Nevertheless, there is a response to American criticism that such agreements could be concluded by the U.S. government, which provided insufficient protection to the Americans.
Companies share all kinds of data for all kinds of reasons. However, if this data is personal data, special attention must be given. In some cases, a processing manager shares the data with another manager (unlike deleging the processing to a data editor). While the stage is ready, the operation of the chord looks like a play that the last act, and perhaps even the second, has yet to be written.