The parable of the broken window weighs what is seen (the payment to the glazier) with what is not seen (the missed payments to other things that could&#x27;ve been purchased had the window not been broken).<p>In the case of safe harbour, <i>the window was already broken</i>. Data being passed from Europe to the US was not being handled correctly, despite the promises inherent in Safe Harbor.<p>If protections had already been in place (i.e. if data service providers were actually adhering to the promises of safe harbour) then service providers <i>have already fixed the window</i>. Those that were safeguarding data correctly have no further engineering work to do (although there might be further regulatory&#x2F;compliance effort to prove it depending on how individual nations implement the stopgap safeguard laws to replace Safe Harbor).<p>The only engineering work required to &quot;fix the window&quot; is work that should already have been done according to the safe harbour agreements, and threads like this prove how broken Safe Harbor was to begin with.