This edited collection of papers was developed from conference presentations delivered in March 2015 at the Institut d’Etudes Européen, as part of the International Association of Constitutional Law’s ‘Constitutional Responses to Terrorism’ research group. The papers have been updated and formatted in a fairly uniform four-part structure, each dealing with a particular aspect of recent dynamics in US and EU law concerning privacy and data protection under conditions of surveillance. The book’s aim is to ‘improve understanding on both sides of the Atlantic on issues of surveillance, privacy and transatlantic relations’, in the furtherance of ‘human rights, national security and Euro-American unity’ (4). It is divided thematically into five parts, addressing the key issues and developments in contemporary law concerning privacy and surveillance in recent years. In the first section, chapters by Tuomas Ojanen and Christopher Slobogin independently address the basic framework within which EU and US privacy rights are articulated. Ojanen makes a good job of the difficult task of explaining the salient points of the Schrems and Digital Rights Ireland cases. The article is perhaps too brief to fully unpack the precise status of privacy as a European right, which is indeed a ‘bit of a maze’. Privacy after Schrems is not ‘a super-fundamental right that reigns supreme’ (16), yet it does contain an ‘inviolable essential core’ that is ‘not subject to limitations’, while at the same time it is subject to a ‘permissible limitations test’ (21). The picture is complicated further because it was unnecessary for the Court to articulate such a test in detail, so they declined to do so (23). Explaining the implications to experienced EU lawyers while also explaining the basics to US lawyers seems more than one chapter can do. Of course, the decisive element in Schrems was the inadequacy of US data and privacy protection. Fourth Amendment protections in US law evolved from possessory interest in tangible property, expanding to cover situations in which there is a ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy. Digital media complicate both elements. The chapter frames the problem in relation to ‘panvasive surveillance’ techniques and the use of ‘mosaic theory’, describing how contemporary law enforcement can

中文翻译：

---

监视，隐私和跨大西洋关系，作者：David D. Cole，Federico Fabbrini和Stephen Schulhofer

该编辑的论文集是根据国际宪章协会“对恐怖主义的宪法回应”研究组的一部分于2015年3月在欧洲研究学院发表的会议演讲中开发的。这些文件已经以相当统一的四部分结构进行了更新和格式化，每个部分都涉及美国和欧盟法律中有关监视条件下的隐私和数据保护的最新动态。该书的目的是“促进人权，国家安全和欧美统一”（4），“增进大西洋两岸对监视，隐私和跨大西洋关系的理解”。它按主题分为五个部分，解决近年来有关隐私和监视的现代法律的关键问题和发展。在第一部分中，Tuomas Ojanen和Christopher Slobogin的各章分别论述了阐明欧盟和美国隐私权的基本框架。Ojanen很好地完成了解释Schrems和Digital Rights Ireland案的要点的艰巨任务。这篇文章可能太简短了，无法完全揭露隐私作为欧洲权利的确切地位，这确实是一个“迷宫”。Schrems之后的隐私权不是“至高无上的超级基本权利”（16），但是它确实包含了“不受限制”的“不可侵犯的基本核心”，而同时却受到“允许的”局限性测试”（21）。这种情况更加复杂，因为法院没有必要详细阐明这种检验，因此他们拒绝这样做（23）。解释对经验丰富的欧盟律师的影响，同时还向美国律师解释基本知识，似乎不止一章可以做。当然，施雷姆斯的决定性因素是美国数据和隐私保护的不足。美国法律的第四修正案保护从对有形财产的拥有权益演变而来，扩大到涵盖对隐私有“合理期望”的情况。数字媒体使这两个要素复杂化。本章介绍了与“大规模监视”技术和“马赛克理论”的使用有关的问题，描述了当代执法如何能够 解释对经验丰富的欧盟律师的影响，同时还向美国律师解释基本知识，似乎不止一章可以做。当然，施雷姆斯的决定性因素是美国数据和隐私保护的不足。美国法律的第四修正案保护从对有形财产的拥有权益演变而来，扩大到涵盖对隐私有“合理期望”的情况。数字媒体使这两个要素复杂化。本章介绍了与“大规模监视”技术和“马赛克理论”的使用有关的问题，描述了当代执法如何能够 解释对经验丰富的欧盟律师的影响，同时还向美国律师解释基本知识，似乎不止一章可以做。当然，施雷姆斯的决定性因素是美国数据和隐私保护的不足。美国法律的第四修正案保护从对有形财产的拥有权益演变而来，扩大到涵盖对隐私有“合理期望”的情况。数字媒体使这两个要素复杂化。本章介绍了与“大规模监视”技术和“马赛克理论”的使用有关的问题，描述了当代执法如何能够 美国法律的第四修正案保护从对有形财产的拥有权益演变而来，扩大到涵盖对隐私有“合理期望”的情况。数字媒体使这两个要素复杂化。本章介绍了与“大规模监视”技术和“马赛克理论”的使用有关的问题，描述了当代执法如何能够 美国法律的第四修正案保护从对有形财产的拥有权益演变而来，扩大到涵盖对隐私有“合理期望”的情况。数字媒体使这两个要素复杂化。本章介绍了与“大规模监视”技术和“马赛克理论”的使用有关的问题，描述了当代执法如何能够