Very much agree Jon,  

Personal data control, what is achieved through ‘real' consent,  is required for many things - among them is managing commercial relationships with vendors.   But, VRM, in my opinion, would not be the only core driver for change.  I still think compliance, combined with customer experience, is going to be the market driver.  

Personal data does not need to be destroyed if access to it only needs to be revoked, i.e. with UMA.  I wrote a piece on this in 2011 for Identity Trust discussing how data protection industry is destroying privacy and undermining national security (not only the individual).     The long and short version being, volunteered personal information is much more valuable to organisations.  Personal control over my data  is the best method of transferring data internationally with compliance and high levels of customer experience. 

- Mark 

On 6 Oct 2015, at 14:53, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you mean that consent of the person permits transfer of data, but consent is necessarily revocable and data must be destroyed?

On Oct 6, 2015 3:40 PM, "Neiditz, Jon" <JNeiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:

Why?

The Advocate General's opinion and the Court's decision both turn on the inability of Safe Harbor to prevent surveillance.  NO permitted basis for data transfer prevents surveillance, not Model Clauses, not Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs).  Logically, if probably not in immediate corporate and EU national practice, the only bulletproof basis for data transfer to the US is now the ever-so-revocable CONSENT, which presumes no fictitious protection from surveillance.

See also:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-morning-safe-harbor-dead-what-does-mean-now-later-jon-neiditz?trk=prof-post

Your thoughts?

Jon Neiditz
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
office 404 815 6004  | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341
jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com | www.kilpatricktownsend.com


________________________________

Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

________________________________

***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma