1. I understand the piece about "stamp" of adequacy. But when the Schrems II ruling happened, the world learned that we cannot always rely on "stamps" and need to look into the laws. At this moment in time, the European Commission says that Canada has adequacy ruling as a whole and there is no note about it not apply to British Columbia.
So my question to you is: Which part of the Personal Information Protection Act in BC would undermine the EU's adequacy decision towards BC? The reason I'm pushing on this question is because the "stamp" occurs for a reason. Please let me know where the PIPA would lead to the European Commission labelling BC as inadequate.
2. We're mixing things up here with Amazon, Google and Azure. Those companies are subject to FISA 702[1] and EO12333[2]. We are not subject to these surveillance laws here in Canada. I've spoken at length about this before, about how the US government could compel one of these companies to secretly spy on people using their EU infrastructure. So our company is not in the same position.
So my question to you is: Which part of the Personal Information Protection Act in BC would undermine the EU's adequacy decision towards BC? The reason I'm pushing on this question is because the "stamp" occurs for a reason. Please let me know where the PIPA would lead to the European Commission labelling BC as inadequate.
2. We're mixing things up here with Amazon, Google and Azure. Those companies are subject to FISA 702[1] and EO12333[2]. We are not subject to these surveillance laws here in Canada. I've spoken at length about this before, about how the US government could compel one of these companies to secretly spy on people using their EU infrastructure. So our company is not in the same position.
I'll wait for your specifics around the PIPA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333