EC Warns U.S. Not to Make Privacy a Bargaining Chip in TTIP Talks
A proposed EU-U.S. trade deal could be “easily” derailed by privacy and data protection issues, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said Tuesday at a Washington conference organized by the Peterson Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the EU delegation that is in the U.S. for talks on the issues. “I warn against bringing data protection to the [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership] trade talks” because it’s a non-negotiable, fundamental right, she said in written remarks. U.S. companies and the government are pressing to use the TTIP to undermine European efforts to change data protection rules, said European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) Senior Legal Officer Kostas Rossoglou in an interview. He spoke Tuesday at a Brussels Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) event on whether the TTIP can bring benefits to the people. The TACD called for the EU and U.S. to negotiate common data privacy standards but to do so outside of TTIP talks.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The TTIP can be “worth the effort” for the EU and U.S., Reding said. Europe is the world’s largest economy, and the U.S. is close behind, she said. Together they would see significant economic gains if it were approved, she said. A second benefit of a trade deal would be the development of a more integrated trans-Atlantic marketplace, she said. Diverging regulations that prevent products from entering one side’s market or make them pricier could be avoided by early regulatory dialogue, she said. Finally, liberalizing trade via the TTIP could positively affect international trade by increasing demand for raw materials, components and other items produced by other nations, and harmonized technical standards could serve as the template for global standards, she said.
The EU-U.S. partnership is the most successful commercial alliance the world has seen and the TTIP could take it to new heights, Reding said. But protection of personal data is one issue that could stymie it, she said. The issue is important to Europeans because of their history of dictatorships, which has led to a common understanding that privacy is an integral part of human dignity and personal freedom, she said.
Reding warned against bringing data protection to the trade talks, saying it’s “not red tape or a tariff,” but a non-debatable human right. The EU is working to update its privacy laws to foster trust in the digital age, and expects the U.S. to do the same, she said. It’s necessary to create a stable basis for data flows between the two regions because interoperability and self-regulation aren’t enough, she said. A similar challenge exists for talks on a data protection agreement for exchange of data by law enforcement agencies, she said. There have been 15 negotiating rounds with the U.S. but the basic issue of how to guarantee a high level of protection for people on both sides of the Atlantic hasn’t been resolved, she said. The accord should provide equal treatment for EU and U.S. citizens, including access to juridical redress when rights are breached, she said.
President Barack Obama’s comment that National Security Agency spying didn’t apply to U.S. citizens or residents told Europeans that “we are not seen as partners, but as a threat,” she said. That’s not a good basis for a new transatlantic pact, she said. The U.S. must do its part to restore trust, including taking European privacy concerns seriously, she said. If it doesn’t, the European Parliament might reject the TTIP, she said. “Friends and partners do not spy on each other,” Reding said.
U.S. business is pushing for safe-harbor principles to be included in the TTIP, an attempt to undermine the proposed EU data protection regulation through the back door, Rossoglou said. Safe harbor undermines European consumers’ rights, he said. “Simply suggesting inclusion of a privacy section in any trade deal is an attack on European privacy protections, which are stronger than U.S. rights,” said U.S. PIRG Consumer Program Director Ed Mierzwinski, who stressed he was speaking personally and not as U.S. co-chair of the TACD. Both spoke at a session on whether the TTIP will affect data protection.
The TACD resolution on data flows in the TTIP (http://bit.ly/1aQSIAZ) says “it is impossible to address the issue of data flows when the data protection regimes in the US and EU are starkly different and unbalanced.” The TACD urged the EU and U.S., among other things, to: (1) Protect the rights of consumers to send and receive content of their choice and the right to use services and run applications of their choice without discrimination. (2) Agree on common data privacy standards, outside TTIP negotiations, that meet EU law. (3) Independently assess the effectiveness of safe harbor and make needed changes to ensure it’s adequately harmonized with EU data protection legislation.
FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez defended her agency’s track record in enforcing safe-harbor. The agreement has had its share of criticism lately, her written remarks said, but it’s sufficient for providing protection for EU citizens’ data in the commercial sphere. The FTC “proactively looks for Safe Harbor violations in every privacy and data security investigation we conduct,” which is how it came to identify breaches alleged against Google, Facebook and Myspace in recent years, she said. Hefty fines such as that levied against Google last year show that “in the FTC’s hand, Safe Harbor is an effective and functioning tool” for safeguarding the privacy of EU citizens’ data transferred to the U.S., she said.
The ongoing debate over how governments should balance national security and privacy shouldn’t be allowed to distort the discussion on safe-harbor, said Ramirez. The EU has national security exemptions in its existing data protection laws and the EC proposed such exemptions for government surveillance in its draft data protection regulation, she said. “It cannot be right to take a different approach when it comes to Safe Harbor, by seeking to conflate the distinct issues raised by the use of personal data to advance private commercial interests on the one hand and to protect national security on the other,” she said. Ramirez acknowledged, however, that many in the audience had a different view.
Another TACD session covered how to prevent an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement-style failure. Talk of TTIP negotiations becoming ACTA part two “is prevalent and perhaps half-accurate,” BEUC Communications Officer John Phelan told us. The substance of the accord is different but worries about transparency and governance are even deeper-rooted, he said. “Civil society is outgunned in every area by industry resources and access,” he said. Negotiations are taking place under a heavy veil of secrecy, and, unlike ACTA, which was about enforcement of laws, the TTIP is concerned with reviewing and diluting many longstanding European consumer rights, such as privacy, he said. BEUC is encouraged to see the EC Justice directorate “dig their heels in over EU data laws” and protest inclusion in the TTIP, Phelan said.