First the European Court of Justice found

[Mistyssaktersfo33]

The Agreement on Principles to Soothe Public Opinion that mass surveillance was disproportionate in scope and within the meaning of art. Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The new US executive order is largely equivalent to that of 2016 and will now contain the word proportionality. The trick is that America would give the word proportion a different meaning than . The statement that mass surveillance is appropriate under an undisclosed U.S. understanding contradicts two findings by the European Court of Justice. This way the EU and the US can claim to agree on the same word ratio even if they don't agree on the meaning of that word.

Secondly the Court of Justice of the European Union said that bringing claims through the Ombudsman under the Privacy Shield was not even in compliance with Art. Although the Email Marketing List ombudsman was praised by the committee in 2011 as a form of independent pursuit of claims in the field of national security. The shenanigans regarding the redress ombudsman mechanism have been renamed and divided into the Civil Liberties Protection Officer and the so-called Court of Justice which is not part of the Court of Justice but is a partially independent executive body.



While there are some minor improvements to the ombudsman system individuals will not have any direct interaction with the new authority they will have to lodge complaints with EU data protection authorities rather than having them heard by the US and they will give exactly the same responses as the previous ombudsman. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 1, the Court must respond to each case by stating that the review failed to identify any covered breach or data protection control without confirming or denying that the complainant was affected by U signals intelligence activities.