those established under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),
offer a foundation for cooperation.
issue, Bilyana Petkova offers compelling reasons to be sceptical of such proposals.
She argues that privacy is emerg-
ing as a unifying constitutional value for Europe comparable to America's First Amendment culture founded on free
In light of that divide, she foresees future clashes with a more internationalist privacy discourse remaining
Petkova's argument, which builds upon past works illustrating the important normative and con-
ceptual differences between European and American privacy,
sets out clearly the challenges for transatlantic
To bridge this continental divide, Pierluigi Perri and David Thaw recently suggested common European and Amer-
ican concerns about “chilling effects”—how privacy threats may chill or deter people from acting freely or exercising
their fundamental rights—might offer a basis for transatlantic privacy.
Indeed, with internet surveillance and censor-
ship on the rise,
the amount of data available online unprecedented,
and states and businesses increasing their
technological capacity to track, process, analyse and leverage it,
concerns about chilling effects have taken on
greater urgency and public importance internationally.
Moreover, though the chilling effects concept has American
origins, similar concerns about the impact of data collection and relating practices have long been considered part of
the broader European data protection project.
Nevertheless, Perri and Thaw offer only brief definition of the notion
of “chilling effects”,with no systematic exploration of chilling effects theory and research and how it has evolved over
And, being conscious of the American/European conceptual divide on privacy, they limit their discussion to
procedural forms of transatlantic harmonisation and cooperation on privacy.
This is unfortunate because I believe
Regulation (EU) 2016/679
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Pro-
cessing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC
 OJ L 119/1.
Schwartz and Peifer, above, n. 1, at 1–2.
See B. Petkova, ‘Privacy as Europe's First Amendment’(2019) European Law Journal (this issue).
Ibid., at 1.
Ibid., at 1.
See, for example, J.Q. Whitman, ‘TheTwo Western Cultures ofPrivacy: Dignity versus Liberty’(2004) 113 Yale Law Journal, 1151; R.C. Post, ‘Three Con-
cepts of Privacy’(2001) 89 Georgetown Law Journal, 2087; Perri and Thaw, above, n. 1. See, also, N.A. John and B. Peters, ‘Why Privacy Keeps Dying: The
Trouble with Talk about the End of Privacy’(2017) 20(2) Information, Communication, & Society, 284.
Perri and Thaw, above, n. 1, at 1624.
D. Volz, ‘Global Internet Surveillance, Censorship on Rise: Report’,Reuters,28 October 2015, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us‐cybersecu-
rity‐report‐idUSKCN0SM1M220151028; A. Fiscutean, ‘Internet Censorship: It's on the Rise and Silicon Valley Is Helping It Happen’,ZDNet, 28 November
2017, available at https://www.zdnet.com/article/internet‐censorship‐its‐on‐the‐rise‐and‐silicon‐valley‐is‐helping‐it‐happen/. See, also, J.W. Penney, ‘The
Cycles of Global Telecommunication Censorship and Surveillance’(2015) 36 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 693, 693–694.
V. Boehme‐Neßler, ‘Privacy: A Matter of Democracy: Why Democracy Needs Privacy and Data Protection’(2016) 6 International Data Privacy Law, 222,
222; C. Kuner, Transborder Data Flow Regulation and Data Privacy Law (Oxford University Press, 2013), 4ff.
B. Wagner, J. Bonowicka, C. Berger and T. Behrndt, ‘Surveillance and Censorship: The Impact of Technologies on Human Rights’, Policy Department,
Directorate‐General for External Policies Report (European Parliament, 2015), at 6–12, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/
STUD/2015/549034/EXPO_STU(2015)549034_EN.pdf; S.A. Cohen and M.W. Granade, ‘Models Will Run the World’,Wall Street Journal (Opinion),19
August 2018, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/models‐will‐run‐the‐world‐1534716720.
Penney, above, n. 11; B. van der Sloot, D. Broeders and E. Schrijvers, ‘Introduction: Exploring the Boundaries of Big Data’, in B. van der Sloot, D. Broeders
and E. Schrijvers (eds.), Exploring the Boundaries of Big Data (Amsterdam University Press, 2016), at 11; F.J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, ‘Singling Out People with-
out Knowing their Names—Behavioural Targeting, Pseudonymous Data, and the New Data Protection Regulation’(2016) 32 Computer Law & Security
Review, 256, 267; Y. Hermstrüwer and S. Dickert, ‘Sharing Is Daring: An Experiment on Consent, Chilling Effects and a Salient Privacy Nudge’(2017) 51
International Review of Law and Economics, 38; C. Quelle, ‘Not just User Control in the General Data Protection Regulation’, in A. Lehmann, D. Whitehouse,
S. Fischer‐Hübner, L. Fritsch and C. Raab (eds.), Privacy and Identity 2016 (Springer, 2016), 140, 154; M. Oostveen and K. Irion, ‘The Golden Age of Personal
Data: How to Regulate an Enabling Fundamental Right?’, in M. Bakhoum, B. Conde Gallego, M.‐O. Mackenordt and G. Surblyte (eds.), Personal Data in Com-
petition, Consumer Protection and IP Law—Towards a Holistic Approach? (Springer, 2017); R. van Brakel, ‘Pre‐emptive Big Data Surveillance and its (Dis)
empowering Consequences: The Case of Predictive Policing’in B. van der Sloot, D. Broeders and E. Schrijvers (eds.), Exploring the Boundaries of Big Data
(Amsterdam University Press, 2016), 117; F.J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, S. Kruikemeier, S.C. Boerman and N. Helberger, ‘Tracking Walls, Take‐It‐or‐Leave‐It
Choices, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy Regulation’(2017) 3 European Data Protection Law Review, 353.
See, for example, J. van Hoboken, ‘From Collection to Use in Privacy Regulation? A Forward‐Looking Comparison of European and US Frameworks for
Personal Data Processing’, in van der Sloot et al. (eds.), above, n. 14, 231, at 243; B. van der Sloot, ‘The Individual in the Big Data Era: Moving towards
an Agent‐Based Privacy Paradigm’, in van der Sloot et al. (eds), above, n. 14, 177; Quelle, above, n. 14, at 154. See, generally, Perri and Thaw, above, n. 1.
Perri and Thaw, above, n. 1, at 1626, 1633–1634.