2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00893-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

International transfers of personal data for health research following Schrems II: a problem in need of a solution

Abstract: On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued their decision in the Schrems II case concerning Facebook’s transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision may have significant effects on the legitimate transfer of personal data for health research purposes from the EU. This article aims: (i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(6 reference statements)
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…127 However, if the data are deemed to be personal data, transfers to countries without adequacy decisions, including the United States, become challenging and unclear at present due to the recent ''Schrems II'' judgment. 128 Due to challenges with ensuring GDPR compliance during global sharing of sensitive healthcare and research data, alternative models for data sharing have been considered. For example, in congruence with a declaration signed by 21 European countries to transnationally share data on at least one million human genomes by the end of 2022, large-scale initiatives, such as the European Genome-Phenome Archive, are shifting toward federated approaches.…”
Section: Ethical Issues Pertaining To Data Usagementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…127 However, if the data are deemed to be personal data, transfers to countries without adequacy decisions, including the United States, become challenging and unclear at present due to the recent ''Schrems II'' judgment. 128 Due to challenges with ensuring GDPR compliance during global sharing of sensitive healthcare and research data, alternative models for data sharing have been considered. For example, in congruence with a declaration signed by 21 European countries to transnationally share data on at least one million human genomes by the end of 2022, large-scale initiatives, such as the European Genome-Phenome Archive, are shifting toward federated approaches.…”
Section: Ethical Issues Pertaining To Data Usagementioning
confidence: 99%
“… 127 However, if the data are deemed to be personal data, transfers to countries without adequacy decisions, including the United States, become challenging and unclear at present due to the recent “Schrems II” judgment. 128 …”
Section: Ethical and Legal Considerations For Human Space Omicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This change has meant that that normative frameworks are examined with greater scrutiny. An examination of the European Commission's adequacy decisions over time shows that pre-Schrems decisions were less exigent (e.g., Canada, Uruguay) than post-Schrems (e.g., Japan, UK) [28]. The more exacting the standard that informs a determination of adequacy, the closer the analysis begins to approximate a point-by-point analysis, the consequence of which is a reduced chance of a determination of adequacy.…”
Section: Step 2: Assess If Foreign Normative Framework Is Functionally Equivalentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The European GDPR rules are more strict than those in the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules for health data exchange [5]. EU demands that health data protection in a third country is essentially equivalent to that in the EU, which is not the case with the US HIPAA system [6]. All health data transfers require to ensure that informed consent is received from each individual, which makes most transatlantic collaboration impossible, if not planned in advance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%