The whole debate is focused on how someone could legally transfer data from Europeans to countries outside the EU (again the US). EU law requires a sufficient level of data protection (of a personal nature) on the part of its citizens, so that these transfers can be carried out legally. One way to support these transfers in a simple way was through the Safe Harbor Agreement. It was a simple certification for companies to basically show the same data protection standards and thus easily obtain data from Europeans. The European Court of Justice rules on the 2000 data protection agreement with the United States, but will it prevent Facebook from transferring your data from the EU to the US? The Safe Harbour Privacy Principles was developed between 1998 and 2000. They should prevent private organizations in the European Union or the United States that store customer data from accidentally revealing or losing personal data. U.S. companies could opt for a program and be certified if they stick to seven principles and 15 frequently asked questions and answers in accordance with the directive.  In July 2000, the European Commission (EC) decided that US companies that adhere to the principles and register their certification are allowed to transmit EU data to the United States. This is called the Safe Harbor decision.  Following a dispute between Austrian data protection advocate Max Schrems, it was decided that US data protection legislation was insufficient and that the agreement needed to be cancelled. Van Eecke: “With the optimization and development of the existing Safe Harbor system and the addition of a solid application layer, we could come up with a practical solution of the week.
This is what government officials are working on, who are now hampered by the court`s decision. German MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht and activist Max Schrems criticised the new ruling, as they said the Commission could take a “tour of Luxembourg” (where the European Court of Justice is located).  Vera Jourova, a Member of the European Commission responsible for consumer protection, said she was convinced that an agreement could be reached by the end of February.  Many Europeans have called for a mechanism for individual European citizens to file complaints about the use of their data, as well as a transparency system to ensure that the data of European citizens does not fall into the hands of the US secret services.  The Article 29 group acted on this request and stated that it would not be a further delay, until March 2016, to decide on the consequences of the Commission`s new proposal.  The European Commission`s Director of Fundamental Rights, Paul Nemitz, explained at a conference in Brussels in January how the Commission would decide on the adequacy of data protection.  The Economist predicts that it will be more difficult for the Court of Justice to make it more risky once the Commission has adopted a strengthened “adequacy decision”.  Data protection advocate Joe McNamee summed up the situation by pointing out that the Commission had announced agreements prematurely and had thus lost its right to negotiate.  At the same time, the first legal disputes began in Germany: in February 2016, the Hamburg Data Protection Authority was preparing the dispute of three companies that relied on Safe Harbour as a legal basis for their transatlantic data transfers, and two other companies were investigated.  On the other hand, a reaction was immediate.  In a November 2013 statement from the European Commission, the recommendations are clarified to the extent that they … to improve the continuity of European data protection rights when transferring their data to the United States. The intention is for the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce to identify companies that do not fully comply with the new