Kenneth Propp was for many years the U.S. State Department`s chief negotiator for information-sharing agreements between the United States and the European Union and its member states, including the 2003 mutual legal aid and extradition agreements. From 2011 to 2015, he was legal advisor to the US mission to the European Union in Brussels. He currently teaches EU law at Georgetown University Law Centre and is a senior fellow with the Future Europe Initiative at the Atlantic Council and the Progressive Policy Institute. First, this article attempts to explain the fundamental mechanisms of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States – without naturally pretending that all the subjects covered are set out in detail. This is done by two graphs showing when and under what conditions (and under what conditions) data can be requested from both parties and when other more traditional access routes to E-E-Evidence, such as. B Mutual Legal Assistance Contracts (MLATs) should be used (Part II). This document will then express a number of initial thoughts, comments and questions on the content of the agreement. It considers that, while the agreement contains some useful elements that could allow for a review of some of the boxes of the negotiating mandate granted to the European Commission by the Council of the EU in June 2019, some other issues remain unclear and uncertain, while others are clearly problematic. They raise a number of important issues that need to be addressed in order to better understand the impact this agreement could have on the ongoing negotiations between the EU and the US and, more generally, on EU law (part III).
 See z.B. Jennifer Daskal and Peter Swire, The UK-US CLOUD Act Agreement is Finally Here, Creating New Safeguards, Lawfare and Just Security blogs, October 8, 2019, available at www.justsecurity.org/66507/the-uk-us-cloud-act-agreement-is-finally-here-containing-new-safeguards/; and Theodore Christakis, 21 reflections and questions on the UK-US CLOUD Act Agreement, European Law Blog, 17 October 2019, available on europeanlawblog.eu/2019/10/17/21-thoughts-and-questions-about-the-uk-us-cloud-act-agreement-and-an-explanation-of-how-it-works-with-charts/. Just before the deal was signed, the British newspaper Sunday Times reported that the deal would require service providers such as WhatsApp and Facebook to decrypt messages in accordance with a government injunction. This story turned out to be false – but on the same day that the US and the United Kingdom signed the agreement, they also published a joint letter with Australia, in which they asked Facebook not to make a plan to do end-to-end encryption in its email systems. This is consistent with the language of the CLOUD Act, which requires a change in the decryption policy to result from separate agreements or changes in national legislation. In the future, the burden for both nations will now be to show that such an agreement truly protects privacy and civil liberties. Many details on how the agreement will work in practice remain to be seen, including the standards of proof for the UK.