CFR Presents

Renewing America

Ideas and initiatives for rebuilding American economic strength.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


How Obama’s NSA Reforms Could Help TTIP

by Guest Blogger for Edward Alden
January 15, 2014

A mobile phone simulating a call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel next to a tablet computer showing the logo of the United Staes' National Security Agency (NSA) is seen in this multiple exposure picture illustration (Kai Pfaffenbach/Courtesy Reuters). A mobile phone simulating a call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel next to a tablet computer showing the logo of the United Staes' National Security Agency (NSA) is seen in this multiple exposure picture illustration (Kai Pfaffenbach/Courtesy Reuters).


This is a guest post by Robert Maxim, research associate, competitiveness and foreign policy, for the Council on Foreign Relations Studies program.

On Friday President Obama will unveil his plan to curb the surveillance practices of the National Security Agency (NSA). When he does, he could inadvertently give a boost to the ambitious U.S.-European Union free trade negotiations. Last June, just weeks before the first round of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations, Edward Snowden revealed that U.S. government agencies were collecting millions of European citizens’ personal data. Though TTIP is colloquially known as a “trade agreement,” its primary focus is regulatory barriers, not lowering tariffs. The United States wants to use TTIP to prevent barriers to the international transfer of personal data—the very data that the NSA was collecting in bulk. The disclosures provoked outrage among EU officials, and several European heads of state threatened to call off the trade talks. Though negotiations have since begun, European concerns about privacy need to be alleviated in order to ensure the continued free flow of data. In recent months the EU has dropped its strident rhetoric and began to seek compromise with the United States. President Obama should take advantage of the opening.

Privacy is considered a fundamental human right in Europe. In 1995 the EU passed the Data Protection Directive, which codified the right to privacy of personal data. This directive prohibits the transfer of an individual’s personal information to countries that the European Union deems to have inadequate privacy standards, including the United States. Transferring personal data such as names, credit card information, birthdates, or telephone numbers across borders is essential to international trade, and has only grown more important with the rise of the Internet economy. In order to ensure that this type of data could continue to be exchanged, the two parties established a “Safe Harbor” agreement in 2000. This agreement allowed American companies that voluntarily complied with the Data Protection Directive to transfer personal information back to the United States.

In response to the Snowden revelations, the European Parliament called for a full review of the Safe Harbor program, which was led by the European Commission’s Justice Minister Viviane Reding. In the wake of the disclosures, Ms. Reding was among the most outspoken critics of the Safe Harbor agreement. She argued that Safe Harbor “could be a loophole” undermining EU data protection laws, and that it was time for the “development of European clouds” so that the U.S. government could not access European citizens’ data.

The two sides came to a working agreement in early July, launching separate privacy negotiations alongside TTIP. In theory this structure would allow the trade negotiations to continue even if the two sides could not agree on how to proceed on privacy. In reality, it would be nearly impossible to complete a trade agreement containing provisions ensuring the free flow of data without resolving the issue of privacy protections for that data.

In November the EU offered an olive branch. The European Commission published its Safe Harbor review, and called for only moderate reforms to the program. The recommendations included requiring Safe Harbor companies to disclose whether U.S. law allows public authorities to collect data from them, making dispute resolution processes available and affordable to individuals, and enhancing inspections of Safe Harbor compliance and fraud. Considering the staunch public posturing by many EU officials, the report came as a surprise. However, a full overhaul of American privacy law (which is formed from a hodgepodge of different provisions in the Constitution, consumer protection laws, and federal case law, rather than a single directive like the EU) would have been a non-starter, and could have derailed the wider TTIP negotiations. TTIP will be a boon for the EU economy, with studies predicting gains of up to €119 billion per year for EU GDP. By maintaining a hard line on privacy, Europe may have lost out on those economic gains, and the United States probably would not have changed its privacy laws anyway.

It is in the United States’ interest to implement the EU’s Safe Harbor recommendations. They are good policies, and will serve as a lifeline for EU negotiators to move past the privacy issue. Additionally, President Obama should incorporate the recommendation from his presidential advisory committee that the personal data of non-U.S. citizens be treated with the same protections as data on American citizens. This will show that the United States has learned from the incident and is committed to treating its allies as equals.

Europe is currently undergoing an overhaul of its own privacy laws, which will keep the issue on the forefront of many peoples’ minds. This is not just an issue that the two sides can “wait out.” A trade agreement that protects the free flow of data without resolving how governments can collect and use private data may not gain popular support within Europe. And losing popular support could doom the TTIP effort.

Post a Comment 2 Comments

  • Posted by Kir Komrik

    Thank you for this analysis,

    I see a storm coming. It’s the storm of personal privacy.

    “Privacy is considered a fundamental human right in Europe.”

    This is one of the saddest commentaries I’ve read in a while, especially considering it came from a CFR post. To me it implies that privacy is _not_ considered a fundamental human right in the United States.

    Where hath the Roman Empire gone? It used to be a mark of pride and distinction that the United States respected privacy. Decadence, moral hazard and ever increasing legal constraints in the public code have been seen before and we know what it prefigures. There is coming a storm over personal privacy and Microsoft’s cloud is going to be front and center. Something needs to be done to stop this crazy train.

    My own sense is that the only solution is to, as the article suggests, create a “cloud” for Europe. But I’d offer a twist. There needs to be a U.S. cloud whose innate capability precludes abuse. That is the only way to restore confidence. This assurance can be made whole and perfected in the public mind by allowing a truly independent NGO access to the software code base that defines those capabilities; but not to the sensitive data itself.

    This way, NSA can get what it needs without exceeding its domestic bounds. While it wouldn’t do much to stop the NSA from collecting data outside the United States, it would still help grease the skids for TTIP and similar activities.

    Call me a skeptic, or perhaps a person grounded in the reality of an abusive world, but if NSA is snooping European data you can bet there is an agreement to allow Europeans to snoop on U.S. private data. Then all that data is simply copied and shared. That’s how the game is played.

    – kk

  • Posted by Alexis de Pleshcoy

    One of the most incredible aspects of our democracy is that treaties as important as TTIP and TTP, which can devastate whatever is left from what used to be called “Western Civilization” can lurk so many years under the radar and become “fait accompli” in celebratory bipartisan Congress sessions, like the ones celebrating NAFTA and China’s WTO admission and MFN.
    The author mentions that TTIP is mostly about “regulatory barriers”, and it is arresting to read that “Transferring personal data such as names, credit card information, birthdates, or telephone numbers across borders is essential to international trade, and has only grown more important with the rise of the Internet economy.” “Transferring” usually means “anything else” and just based on this I would personally ask my Congress representatives to vote “No” to TTIP.
    The Orwellian construct “free flow of data” to hide legalized identity theft seems straight from Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” series. A far better approach for multinational corporations would be to understand that product and service quality are more important than targeted marketing, even using “Big Data” tools.
    The study mentioned in the article – “Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment”- which states that a US family of four will save Euro 655/year is incorrect.
    First, it is absolutely impossible to predict anything at the size and complexity of the EU/US trade.
    Second, even if there are savings, they will not be distributed arithmetically.
    Third, the Great 2008 Recession had proved that neither the US, nor the EU economics/business educational systems can’t produce people capable of allocating resources and calculating risk in one of the oldest human activities: real estate (oldest house is 15,000 old, Ukraine).

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required