The first weakness is the absence of European sovereign clouds. However, the subject has been on the table for at least fifteen years: 15 years of hesitation, postponement, lack of ambition and lack of decisions. The European Union is supposed to strengthen every Member State, but this is another area in which it has done nothing. France did not stop, as it tried to promote the French sovereign clouds. In the absence of incentives, resources, continuity of efforts, economic patriotism and, seriously, conviction, little has come of it; In the meantime, GAFA`s clouds have conquered the market. In other words, the foreign partners of the United States, and in particular european countries, who share with the United States a common attention to human rights and a common will to fight crime, will be able to abandon the protection of their citizens and businesses against American investigations and data consultation by the CLOUD Act and if they begin to negotiate an executive agreement that is a diplomatic means. to approve the law. in exchange for a facilitated police investigation. This explains the difficulty their governments face in obtaining a definitive opinion on the CLOUD Act, as law enforcement authorities consider it to be good legislation, with economic and data protection services being more cautious. On 3 October 10, 2019, the United Kingdom and the United States signed a bilateral agreement under the US CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act), which allows law enforcement authorities in both countries to directly access electronic data stored by companies in the other country. In most cases, the requirement for prior judicial authorisation for access to personal data has been waived, circumventing the protection of the existing mutual legal assistance agreement. This bilateral agreement was signed a week after the opening of negotiations between the EU and the US for a possible agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The first reactions that followed the announcement of the agreement between Britain and the United States have, unsurprisingly, received mixed reviews.
Jennifer Daskal and Peter Swire welcomed an agreement that contains “certain data protection and civil rights safeguards that go beyond the text of the CLOUD Act.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, on the other hand, spoke of a “race to the downside” (a comment before the publication of the text of the agreement), while others worried about so-called “cowboy practices” (!). While in the United States, MEP Doug Collins welcomed the agreement, some MEPs expressed their concerns and put a written question to the European Commission. In a nutshell, executive agreements allow foreign governments to request data directly from non-U.S. countries. No one if you can meet the many requirements. However, for requests involving U.S. persons, the foreign government must resort to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) procedure or receive assistance in a criminal investigation or prosecution (28 U.S. Code 1782 and 18 U.S.
Code 3512). This globalization of criminal evidence poses considerable challenges to prosecutions. Traditional cross-border mechanisms, such as mutual legal assistance contracts, are widely considered too slow and cumbersome. The explanatory memorandum to the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States states that `the total duration of the process [of an application for MLAT transmitted by the United Kingdom to the United States] is generally one year, but may be several years`. . . .