Not a TL;DR, but here&#x27;s a very telling excerpt:<p><i>Consent has to be at least 1. freely given, 2. specific, 3. informed and 4. unambiguous under Directive 95&#x2F;46&#x2F;EC.<p>...<p>Users would have to be informed about the specific situation. So just saying that “data is transferred outside of the EEA”, as the Facebook terms currently do, will clearly not be sufficient to make an average users understand that his data may end up at the NSA. At the same time Facebook is still publicly claiming that it has never heard of any of any US spy program.<p>...<p>To get a valid consent Facebook in our example would have to be very upfront and explain that all data that is used on facebook.com is subject to mass and indiscriminate surveillance by the US government.<p>...<p>A legally binding consent under EU law can be done technically, but very likely Facebook would automatically violate the “gag order” that applies to them under US law. So basically they are trapped between US “gag orders” prohibiting proper information and EU law demanding exactly that.<p>...<p>Bottom line: We will see a hand full of lawyers advising client to simply put some additional disclaimer in their privacy policy – maybe just to have some additional argument in the public debate or before DPAs that are known to be “business friendly”, but this will not be a legally stable solution when data is processed at US companies that are subject to ‘mass surveillance’.</i>