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've been purchased had the window not been broken).
In the case of safe harbour, the window was already broken. Data being passed from Europe to the US was not being handled correctly, despite the promises inherent in Safe Harbor.
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 have already fixed the window. Those that were safeguarding data correctly have no further engineering work to do (although there might be further regulatory/compliance effort to prove it depending on how individual nations implement the stopgap safeguard laws to replace Safe Harbor).
The only engineering work required to "fix the window" 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.
In the case of safe harbour, the window was already broken. Data being passed from Europe to the US was not being handled correctly, despite the promises inherent in Safe Harbor.
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 have already fixed the window. Those that were safeguarding data correctly have no further engineering work to do (although there might be further regulatory/compliance effort to prove it depending on how individual nations implement the stopgap safeguard laws to replace Safe Harbor).
The only engineering work required to "fix the window" 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.