![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is not clear on the applications of this law. I was trying to determine how this law relates to private health information being shared in research, such as hospitals giving de-identified statistics to researchers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel like this is relevant to the discussion of safe harbour as it is a major issue for European organisations wishing to use American services i.e. Microsoft admits Patriot Act can access EU-based cloud data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.175.101 ( talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The Safe Harbour decision has been invalidated [ http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/schrems-judgment.pdf Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 117/15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daurnimator ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
noticed the discrepancy of British vs American spelling of "harbour" vs "harbor" in the page title today. whoever started the page, Wikipedia2007~enwiki and all who came after, didnt use the original EU spelling. its british in the sources of course, but mixed throughout the page.
Page move ?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a view on dropping the word 'International' from the title? - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 05:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should change it to United States-European Union...., as on the US-EU relations page United_States–European_Union_relations. Seniorexpat ( talk)
This title would not be appropriate in view of the Swiss-US content (Switzerland is non-EU) - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 03:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, then we could change it to Transatlantic Safe Harbor... with a water metaphor as in Transatlantic_relations. Seniorexpat ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We should probably change the tense throughout here, now that it's effectively been replaced by the new "EU–US Privacy Shield" — which always seems to be named that way round, as far as I can see. (We should, imho, also make spelling be consistent — it was an American agreement, providing a safe harbour for American companies and, as such, I've only ever seen it spelt in US English, even in British documents. Certainly, within the Open Rights Group (on whose board I sit), we've always tried to be consistent with the US spelling as a proper noun.) Either way, it no longer is anything, and now quite definitely was. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 13:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The third paragraph and the section "Citizen complaint" are current. All else would have to be subjected to an update of tense. Seniorexpat ( talk) 16:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is not clear on the applications of this law. I was trying to determine how this law relates to private health information being shared in research, such as hospitals giving de-identified statistics to researchers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel like this is relevant to the discussion of safe harbour as it is a major issue for European organisations wishing to use American services i.e. Microsoft admits Patriot Act can access EU-based cloud data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.175.101 ( talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The Safe Harbour decision has been invalidated [ http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/schrems-judgment.pdf Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 117/15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daurnimator ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
noticed the discrepancy of British vs American spelling of "harbour" vs "harbor" in the page title today. whoever started the page, Wikipedia2007~enwiki and all who came after, didnt use the original EU spelling. its british in the sources of course, but mixed throughout the page.
Page move ?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a view on dropping the word 'International' from the title? - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 05:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should change it to United States-European Union...., as on the US-EU relations page United_States–European_Union_relations. Seniorexpat ( talk)
This title would not be appropriate in view of the Swiss-US content (Switzerland is non-EU) - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 03:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, then we could change it to Transatlantic Safe Harbor... with a water metaphor as in Transatlantic_relations. Seniorexpat ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We should probably change the tense throughout here, now that it's effectively been replaced by the new "EU–US Privacy Shield" — which always seems to be named that way round, as far as I can see. (We should, imho, also make spelling be consistent — it was an American agreement, providing a safe harbour for American companies and, as such, I've only ever seen it spelt in US English, even in British documents. Certainly, within the Open Rights Group (on whose board I sit), we've always tried to be consistent with the US spelling as a proper noun.) Either way, it no longer is anything, and now quite definitely was. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 13:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The third paragraph and the section "Citizen complaint" are current. All else would have to be subjected to an update of tense. Seniorexpat ( talk) 16:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)