Ecco le critiche
- For starters, the organization takes exception to a Feb. 29 release from the European Commission that states the U.S. government has provided written assurances that there will be “no indiscriminate or mass surveillance by national security authorities.” The EFF suggests that use of the term “indiscriminate” is undefined and ambiguous; therefore, anyone espousing the most liberal interpretation of this policy might believe that “the data of hundreds of millions of people can be scanned by the government under broad categories, and that, somehow, this activity is discriminating.”
- EFF questioned the logic of establishing an independent ombudsman within the U.S. State Department to handle redress from incidents specifically involving U.S. national security. The organization suggested there would be an inherent conflict of interest and bias toward federal law enforcement, “especially when that department directly benefits from advice of the intelligence agencies.”
- EFF concludes that the Privacy Shield does not sufficiently remedy the flaws that resulted in Safe Harbor being struck down by the European Court of Justice. Rather, claims EFF, “It maintains the program of mass surveillance against non-U.S. persons that so disturbed the court, it denies Europeans effective remedy against a wide range of state surveillance programs, and its proposed methods for dispute resolution are neither independent, nor reach sufficiently deeply into the intelligence agencies' practices.”
As the head European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, noted, the independence expected of this overseer is difficult to reconcile with their position in one of the primary executive departments, especially when that department directly benefits from advice of the intelligence agencies.
A questo aggiungo: chi ha firmato il nuovo accordo aveva i poteri per farlo ? E' un punto specifico della decisione della Corte Europea.