Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A safe harbor is a provision of a statute or a regulation that specifies that certain conduct will be deemed not to violate a given rule. It is usually found in connection with a more-vague, overall standard. By contrast, " un safe harbors" describe conduct that will be deemed to violate the rule. For example, in the context of a statute that ...
In 1980, the OECD issued recommendations for protection of personal data in the form of eight principles. These were non-binding and in 1995, the European Union (EU) enacted a more binding form of governance, i.e. legislation, to protect personal data privacy in the form of the Data Protection Directive.
Soon after this decision, the European Commission and the U.S. Government started talks about a new framework, and on February 2, 2016, they reached a political agreement. [1] The European Commission published the "adequacy decision" draft, declaring principles to be equivalent to the protections offered by EU law.
In United States business law, a forward-looking statement or safe harbor statement is a statement that cannot sustain itself as merely a historical fact. A forward-looking statement predicts, projects, or uses future events as expectations or possibilities. These statements can often be misleading, as they can be mistaken for factual ...
In addition to the two general requirements listed above, all four safe harbors impose additional requirements for immunity. The safe harbor for storage of infringing material under § 512(c) is the most commonly encountered because it immunizes OSPs such as YouTube that might inadvertently host infringing material uploaded by users.
Under the agreement, Safe Harbor was required to invest at least $1 million in the docks during the first 10 years of the lease. Another $100,000 would be required during each 10-year term the ...
The project is made possible via a Safe Harbor Agreement with landowners and the companion Candidate Conservation Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The conservation agreement was ...
The EU parliament raised substantial doubts that the new agreement reached by Ursula von der Leyen is actually conform with EU laws, as it still does not sufficiently protect EU citizens from US mass surveillance and severely fails to enforce basic human digital rights in the EU. [7]