Yesterday, 3 April 2018, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, along with 93 civil society organisations from across the globe, sent a letter to the Secretary…
“On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted pursuant to that provision, such as Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, by which the European Commission finds that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of that directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection.
2. Decision 2000/520 is invalid.”
Thank God, the insanity only lasted three days. The City Hall of São Paulo, the biggest city in South America, surrealistically ordered taxi drivers to…
Blasphemy sentence against Pakistani actors and TV channel
RAIF BADAWI AWARD For Courageous Journalists 2020 The Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Keynote Speech Agnes Callamard, Director, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression; UN Special…
Columbia University Calls for Nominations for Second Annual Global Freedom of Expression Prizes NEW YORK, October 11, 2015 — Columbia University today announced that it…
Executive Summary Until recently, the distribution arrangements for Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) had been largely identified on the public web and the dark web.…
The en banc review of the Sixth Circuit reversed its previous judgment and determined that the Bible Believers’ speech was protected by the First Amendment even if it could be considered offensive and loathsome. The court also concluded that the Wayne County officials effectuated a heckler’s veto which violated the First Amendment. Wayne County did not prove a legitimate interest in order to limit the right to freedom of expression of the Bible Believers.
This report was published by the Open Technology Fund and is republished here with permission and thanks. Since 2013, Egypt has seen the worst human…
