揭开临床研究数据跨境转移的Schrems II的神秘面纱。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2021-10-23 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsab032
Joseph Liss, David Peloquin, Mark Barnes, Barbara E Bierer
{"title":"揭开临床研究数据跨境转移的Schrems II的神秘面纱。","authors":"Joseph Liss,&nbsp;David Peloquin,&nbsp;Mark Barnes,&nbsp;Barbara E Bierer","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsab032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in its July 2020 <i>Schrems II</i> decision that, in order for entities in other countries to import personal data from the European Economic Area (EEA), the importer must be able to provide data protections 'essentially equivalent' to those the EEA offers under its General Data Protection Regulation. The CJEU expressed particular concern that United States' national security intelligence gathering laws prevent U.S.-based entities from providing such protections. This decision has sharply limited the sharing of clinical research data from the EEA to the United States. After describing the pertinent aspects of the <i>Schrems II</i> decision, this article evaluates U.S. national security intelligence gathering frameworks, including Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Executive Order 12333. The article then leverages recent draft guidance from the European Data Protection Board to explain how entities may be able to adopt widely used contractual and technical measures, such as data pseudonymization, to provide 'essentially equivalent' protections in the clinical research context.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"8 2","pages":"lsab032"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541704/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Demystifying <i>Schrems II</i> for the cross-border transfer of clinical research data.\",\"authors\":\"Joseph Liss,&nbsp;David Peloquin,&nbsp;Mark Barnes,&nbsp;Barbara E Bierer\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsab032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in its July 2020 <i>Schrems II</i> decision that, in order for entities in other countries to import personal data from the European Economic Area (EEA), the importer must be able to provide data protections 'essentially equivalent' to those the EEA offers under its General Data Protection Regulation. The CJEU expressed particular concern that United States' national security intelligence gathering laws prevent U.S.-based entities from providing such protections. This decision has sharply limited the sharing of clinical research data from the EEA to the United States. After describing the pertinent aspects of the <i>Schrems II</i> decision, this article evaluates U.S. national security intelligence gathering frameworks, including Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Executive Order 12333. The article then leverages recent draft guidance from the European Data Protection Board to explain how entities may be able to adopt widely used contractual and technical measures, such as data pseudonymization, to provide 'essentially equivalent' protections in the clinical research context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"lsab032\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541704/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab032\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

欧盟法院(CJEU)在其2020年7月的Schrems II决定中裁定,为了使其他国家的实体从欧洲经济区(EEA)进口个人数据,进口商必须能够提供与EEA根据其通用数据保护条例提供的数据“本质上等同”的数据保护。欧洲法院特别关切的是,美国的国家安全情报收集法阻止美国实体提供此类保护。这一决定严重限制了从欧洲经济区到美国的临床研究数据共享。在描述了Schrems II案判决的相关方面之后,本文评估了美国国家安全情报收集框架,包括《外国情报监视法》第702条和行政命令12333。然后,文章利用欧洲数据保护委员会最近的指导草案来解释实体如何能够采用广泛使用的合同和技术措施,例如数据假名,以在临床研究背景下提供“本质上等同”的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Demystifying Schrems II for the cross-border transfer of clinical research data.

The Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in its July 2020 Schrems II decision that, in order for entities in other countries to import personal data from the European Economic Area (EEA), the importer must be able to provide data protections 'essentially equivalent' to those the EEA offers under its General Data Protection Regulation. The CJEU expressed particular concern that United States' national security intelligence gathering laws prevent U.S.-based entities from providing such protections. This decision has sharply limited the sharing of clinical research data from the EEA to the United States. After describing the pertinent aspects of the Schrems II decision, this article evaluates U.S. national security intelligence gathering frameworks, including Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Executive Order 12333. The article then leverages recent draft guidance from the European Data Protection Board to explain how entities may be able to adopt widely used contractual and technical measures, such as data pseudonymization, to provide 'essentially equivalent' protections in the clinical research context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
How do we justify research into enhanced warfighters? The new EU-US data protection framework's implications for healthcare. The new regulation of non-medical neurotechnologies in the European Union: overview and reflection. Implementing the human right to science in the context of health: introduction to the special issue. Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1