Safe
Harbor is a US government program in co-operation with the EU and Swiss
governments providing self-certification for companies concerning the security
of data gathered outside of the USA, but residing on servers within the USA. It
tells the overseas participants, the EU and Switzerland, that the data will be
kept private and secure within the USA. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein have
also agreed to be bound by this agreement.
You can find out if a company is Safe Harbor compliant on the Safe
Harbor website, http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/
.
The
Safe Harbor framework is vital for any company in the US that carries out data
collection (data import in Safe Harbor terms) in Europe using computer systems
based in the USA. Without it, the nightmare of having to comply with 30
countries differing security requirements would be crippling to data collection
activities.
The
introduction by CASRO (casro.org) of a Safe Harbor assistance program is a tremendous help
to US based MR or survey companies who carry out research in Europe. This program makes it
easier for CASRO members to become Safe Harbor certified and also provides a
mediation channel for dispute resolution, a requirement for Safe Harbor compliance.
So
all is right in the world. Become Safe Harbor compliant and you are now all set
to collect data from Europe without violating any security requirements of
European countries!
The
problem is that this isn’t quite true.
There
is a threat to Safe Harbor and it raises the specter of a world without a
substantial Safe Harbor system. This threat started in Düsseldorf, Germany in
2010. Germany has a federal system of regional government, each of the 16
states within the German federation has significant legal powers. In April of
2010 the “Düsseldorf Circle” met. This was an informal group of data protection
officials from each of the 16 states within Germany. They passed a resolution
that meant that they no longer accepted membership to the Safe Harbor agreement
as reliable enough to allow data collection by US entities within each of the German
states. They stated that there was a requirement for further due diligence on
the part of German companies “exporting” data to the US beyond those required
by Safe Harbor. In short, they needed to undertake their own due diligence with
the US data importer and the onus is on the German companies to make sure they
are satisfied that the US importer is secure enough.
In
practice this means that when you agree a deal with a multinational European
company to collect data from all their companies in Europe, you have to not
only be a member of the Safe Harbor program but often also sign a separate
agreement with the Germany subsidiary company because of German federal law. It
also applies to global US based companies; the German subsidiary will often
require an agreement of their own. This agreement is often part of the EU
directive on data storage, a sort of re-affirmation that the data will be kept
safe while in the US. Sometimes the German company simply decided not to be
part of the global master agreement and to use local facilities to store German
data so it never crosses the shores of the USA.
So
far this seems only to be happening with Germany, but it represents a crack in
the Safe Harbor system. The United Kingdom has some very strict laws regarding
data collection and privacy. For instance, you have to actively agree to allow
websites to use cookies on your computer. All UK websites will ask for this permission
when you first visit them. Very often UK companies will require that data
collected within the UK resides on servers in the UK and that it is not
exported to the USA. This trend is becoming more common, companies want their
data in the their country. It may only be a matter of time before other
European countries follow the lead of Germany and require data exporters to
have their own agreements, outside of Safe Harbor, with US data importers.
After
the controversy surrounding the revelations by Edward Snowden concerning the
USA and government spying, the USA is unfortunately regarded with suspicion in
much of Europe when it comes to data security. Earlier last year the French and
German governments held talks regarding an Internet communications system that
would avoid data (mainly email) passing through the USA to shield it from USA
government spying. This shows the level of concern in Europe about USA data
security. It is not in anyone’s interest
to go back to having agreements with each nation within the EU concerning data exporting
to the USA, it will be very time consuming, chaotic and only to serve to stifle
business for US companies who want to collect data globally.
Companies
such as Amazon can provide one possible technical solution to local country
storage requirements. Amazon, along with selling anything you could possibly
think of, also sells cloud-computing resources via “Amazon Web Services” (AWS).
AWS is also able to localize the cloud services so that your data can be in a
specific place, for instance Frankfurt or Ireland. It could be a solution for
US based companies gathering data but needing the data to be stored in another
country. But it is by no means simple to split data storage across facilities
in this way, so while it sounds like a solution, implementing it could be
harder than it looks.
Safe
Harbor is very much in the interest of global MR client companies. It allows
streamlined data collection operations from a single US source, rather than
having to have data collected from many different countries individually. It
makes data collection much more efficient and hence more economic, not to
mention cutting down the time taken to implement data collection agreements. Safe
harbor is vital to US data collection companies and needs to be kept safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment