A comparison of data protection legislation and policies across the EU

Although the protection of personal data is harmonized within the EU by Directive 95/46/EC and will be further harmonized by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018, there are significant differences in the ways in which EU member states implemented the protection of privacy and personal data in national laws, policies, and practices. This paper presents the main findings of a research project that compares the protection of privacy and personal data in eight EU member states: France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, Romania, Italy, Sweden, and the Netherlands. The comparison focuses on five major themes: awareness and trust, government policies for personal data protection, the applicable laws and regulations, implementation of those laws and regulations, and supervision and enforcement.The comparison of privacy and data protection regimes across the EU shows some remarkable findings, revealing which countries are frontrunners and which countries are lagging behind on specific aspects. For instance, the roles of and interplay between governments, civil rights organizations, and data protections authorities vary from country to country. Furthermore, with regard to privacy and data protection there are differences in the intensity and scope of political debates, information campaigns, media attention, and public debate. New concepts like privacy impact assessments, privacy by design, data breach notifications and big data are on the agenda in some but not in all countries. Significant differences exist in (the levels of) enforcement by the different data protection authorities, due to different legal competencies, available budgets and personnel, policies, and cultural factors.     

Profiling the mobile customer – Is industry self-regulation adequate to protect consumer privacy when behavioural advertisers target mobile phones? – Part II

Mobile customers are increasingly being tracked and profiled by behavioural advertisers to enhance delivery of personalized advertising. This type of profiling relies on automated processes that mine databases containing personally-identifying or anonymous consumer data, and it raises a host of significant concerns about privacy and data protection. This second article in a two part series on “Profiling the Mobile Customer” explores how to best protect consumers’ privacy and personal data through available mechanisms that include industry self-regulation, privacy-enhancing technologies and legislative reform.¹ It discusses how well privacy and personal data concerns related to consumer profiling are addressed by two leading industry self-regulatory codes from the UK and the U.S. that aim to establish fair information practices for behavioural advertising by their member companies. It also discusses the current limitations of using technology to protect consumers from privacy abuses related to profiling. Concluding that industry self-regulation and available privacy-enhancing technologies will not be adequate to close important privacy gaps related to consumer profiling without legislative reform, it offers suggestions for EU and U.S. regulators about how to do this.²     

Profiling the mobile customer – Privacy concerns when behavioural advertisers target mobile phones – Part I

Mobile customers are being tracked and profiled by behavioural advertisers to be able to send them personalized advertising. This process involves data mining consumer databases containing personally-identifying or anonymous data and it raises a host of important privacy concerns. This article, the first in a two part series on consumer information privacy issues on Profiling the Mobile Customer, addresses the questions: “What is profiling in the context of behavioural advertising?” and “How will consumer profiling impact the privacy of mobile customers?” The article examines the EU and U.S. regulatory frameworks for protecting privacy and personal data in regards to profiling by behavioural advertisers that targets mobile customers. It identifies potential harms to privacy and personal data related to profiling for behavioural advertising. It evaluates the extent to which the existing regulatory frameworks in the EU and the U.S. provide an adequate level of privacy protection and identifies key privacy gaps that the behavioural advertising industry and regulators will need to address to adequately protect mobile consumers from profiling by marketers. The upcoming second article in this series will discuss whether industry self-regulation or privacy-enhancing technologies will be adequate to address these privacy gaps and makes suggestions for principles to guide this process.¹     

Pricing privacy – the right to know the value of your personal data

The commodification of digital identities is an emerging reality in the data-driven economy. Personal data of individuals represent monetary value in the data-driven economy and are often considered a counter performance for “free” digital services or for discounts for online products and services. Furthermore, customer data and profiling algorithms are already considered a business asset and protected through trade secrets. At the same time, individuals do not seem to be fully aware of the monetary value of their personal data and tend to underestimate their economic power within the data-driven economy and to passively succumb to the propertization of their digital identity. An effort that can increase awareness of consumers/users on their own personal information could be making them aware of the monetary value of their personal data. In other words, if individuals are shown the “price” of their personal data, they can acquire higher awareness about their power in the digital market and thus be effectively empowered for the protection of their information privacy. This paper analyzes whether consumers/users should have a right to know the value of their personal data. After analyzing how EU legislation is already developing in the direction of propertization and monetization of personal data, different models for quantifying the value of personal data are investigated. These models are discussed, not to determine the actual prices of personal data, but to show that the monetary value of personal data can be quantified, a conditio-sine-qua-non for the right to know the value of your personal data. Next, active choice models, in which users are offered the option to pay for online services, either with their personal data or with money, are discussed. It is concluded, however, that these models are incompatible with EU data protection law. Finally, practical, moral and cognitive problems of pricing privacy are discussed as an introduction to further research. We conclude that such research is needed to see to which extent these problems can be solved or mitigated. Only then, it can be determined whether the benefits of introducing a right to know the value of your personal data outweigh the problems and hurdles related to it.     

The future of privacy certification in Europe: an exploration of options under article 42 of the GDPR

The EU faces substantive legislative reform in data protection, specifically in the form of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). One of the new elements in the GDPR is its call to establish data protection certification mechanisms, data protection seals and marks to help enhance transparency and compliance with the Regulation and allow data subjects to quickly assess the level of data protection of relevant products and services. To this effect, it is necessary to review privacy and data protection seals afresh and determine how data protection certification mechanisms, seals or marks might work given the role they will be called to play, particularly in Europe, in facilitating data protection. This article reviews the current state of play of privacy seals, the EU policy and regulatory thrusts for privacy and data protection certification, and the GDPR provisions on certification of the processing of personal data. The GDPR leaves substantial room for various options on data protection certification, which might play out in various ways, some of which are explored in this article.     

Smart meters and the information panopticon: beyond the rhetoric of compliance

The Smart Meter Implementation Programme is the Government's flagship energy policy. In its search for solutions to address privacy dilemmas raised by smart meters, the Government has been content with using data protection principles as a policy framework to regulate the processing of consumers' personal information. This is worrying since the question of who has access to what type of information and how it is used cannot simply be regarded as raising information security, authenticity and integrity issues. If we are to go beyond the rhetoric of protecting the privacy rights of energy consumers we must scrutinise the context in which legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of privacy subsist. To remedy this apparent policy oversight, the paper undertakes two tasks: first, to clarify the content and application of data protection and privacy rights to smart meters; and second, it outlines a policy framework that will address the lack of specificity on how best innovation and privacy issues can be better calibrated. More importantly, it calls for targeted substantive reforms, development of accessible privacy policies and information management practices that promote transparency and accountability and deployment of technological solutions that will help reduce emerging fault lines between innovation and privacy in this sphere of energy policymaking.     

The 2013 CLSR-LSPI seminar on electronic identity: The global challenge – Presented at the 8th International Conference on Legal,Security and Privacy issues in IT Law (LSPI) November 11–15, 2013, Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd., Bangkok,Thailand

We are the middle of a global identity crisis. New notions of identity are made possible in the online world where people eagerly share their personal data and leave ‘digital footprints’. Multiple, partial identities emerge distributed across cyberspace divorced from the physical person. The representation of personal characteristics in data sets, together with developing technologies and systems for identity management, in turn change how we are identified. Trustworthy means of electronic identification is now a key issue for business, governments and individuals in the fight against online identity crime. Yet, along with the increasing economic value of digital identity, there are also risks of identity misuse by organisations that mine large data sets for commercial purposes and in some cases by governments. Data proliferation and the non-transparency of processing practices make it impossible for the individual to track and police their use. Potential risks encompass not only threats to our privacy, but also knowledge-engineering that can falsify digital profiles attributed to us with harmful consequences. This panel session will address some of the big challenges around identity in the digital age and what they mean for policy and law (its regulation and protection). Questions for discussion include: What does identity mean today? What types of legal solutions are fit for purpose to protect modern identity interests? What rights, obligations and responsibilities should be associated with our digital identities? Should identity management be regulated and who should be held liable and for what? What should be the role of private and public sectors in identity assurance schemes? What are the global drivers of identity policies? How can due process be ensured where automated technologies affect the rights and concerns of citizens? How can individuals be more empowered to control their identity data and give informed consent to its use? How are biometrics and location-tracking devices used in body surveillance changing the identity landscape?     

EU General Data Protection Regulation: Changes and implications for personal data collecting companies

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into force in the European Union (EU) in May 2018 to meet current challenges related to personal data protection and to harmonise data protection across the EU. Although the GDPR is anticipated to benefit companies by offering consistency in data protection activities and liabilities across the EU countries and by enabling more integrated EU-wide data protection policies, it poses new challenges to companies. They are not necessarily prepared for the changes and may lack awareness of the upcoming requirements and the GDPR's coercive measures. The implementation of the GDPR requirements demands substantial financial and human resources, as well as training of employees; hence, companies need guidance to support them in this transition. The purposes of this study were to compare the current Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC with the GDPR by systematically analysing their differences and to identify the GDPR's practical implications, specifically for companies that provide services based on personal data. This study aimed to identify and discuss the changes introduced by the GDPR that would have the most practical relevance to these companies and possibly affect their data management and usage practices. Therefore, a review and a thematic analysis and synthesis of the article-level changes were carried out. Through the analysis, the key practical implications of the changes were identified and classified. As a synthesis of the results, a framework was developed, presenting 12 aspects of these implications and the corresponding guidance on how to prepare for the new requirements. These aspects cover business strategies and practices, as well as organisational and technical measures.     

民法典框架下个人数据财产法益的体系构建

从欧盟个人数据保护相关立法的变迁可以发现,个人数据从隐私权保护的传统模式开始出现向财产权保护模式过渡的迹象。这并不意味着数据产业界的新机会,而是调节数据主体与数据控制者之间日益失衡关系的新尝试。财产权保护模式有着隐私权保护模式无可比拟的优势,却也存在权利定性和范围界定上的困难。与非个人数据更为鲜明的财产属性不同,个人数据上的民事权益应该构建为一个以数据主体的财产利益为基础、以数据控制者对个人数据的占有利益为核心的财产法益体系。数据控制者及其义务作为个人数据财产法益体系的中心,才能在保护数据主体和发挥数据效用之间保持平衡。     

Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators

A series of recent developments highlight the increasingly important role of online platforms in impacting data privacy in today's digital economy. Revelations and parliamentary hearings about privacy violations in Facebook's app and service partner ecosystem, EU Court of Justice judgments on joint responsibility of platforms and platform users, and the rise of smartphone app ecosystems where app behaviour is governed by app distribution platforms and operating systems, all show that platform policies can make or break the enjoyment of privacy by users. In this article, we examine these developments and explore the question of what can and should be the role of platforms in protecting data privacy of their users.The article first distinguishes the different roles that platforms can have in ensuring respect for data privacy in relevant ecosystems. These roles include governing access to data, design of relevant interfaces and privacy mechanisms, setting of legal and technical standards, policing behaviour of the platform's (business) users, coordinating responsibility for privacy issues between platform users and the platform, and direct and indirect enforcement of a platform's data privacy standards on relevant players. At a higher level, platforms can also perform a role by translating different international regulatory requirements into platform policies, thereby facilitating compliance of apps in different regulatory environments. And in all of this, platforms are striking a balance between ensuring the respect for data privacy in data-driven environments on the one hand and optimization of the value and business opportunities connected to the platform and underlying data for users of the platform on the other hand.After this analysis of platforms’ roles in protecting privacy, the article turns to the question of what should this role be and how to better integrate platforms in the current legal frameworks for data privacy in Europe and the US. The article will argue for a compromise between direct regulation of platforms and mere self-regulation, in arguing that platforms should be required to make official disclosures about their privacy-related policies and practices for their respective ecosystems. These disclosures should include statements about relevant conditions for access to data and the platform, the platform's standards with respect to privacy and the way in which these standards ensure or facilitate compliance with existing legal frameworks by platform users, and statements with respect to the risks of abuse of different data sources and platform tools and actions taken to prevent or police such abuses. We argue that such integration of platforms in current regulatory frameworks is both feasible and desirable. It would make the role that platforms already have in practice more explicit. This would help to highlight best practices, create more accountability and could save significant regulatory and compliance resources in bringing relevant information together in one place. In addition, it could provide clarity for business users of platforms, who are now sometimes confronted with restrictive decisions by platforms in ways that lack transparency and oversight.     

Privacy,Data Retention and Domination: Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications

In Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, the European Court of Justice found the EU Data Retention Directive, which required the retention of communications data for up to two years, to be incompatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data. It is argued in this note that the decision ought to be taken as one that is concerned with the exercise of arbitrary power, a concern that is captured by the concept of domination.     

Looking for needles in a haystack: Key issues affecting children's rights in the General Data Protection Regulation

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) devotes particular attention to the protection of personal data of children. The rationale is that children are less aware of the risks and the potential consequences of the processing of their personal data on their rights. Yet, the text of the GDPR offers little clarity as to the actual implementation and impact of a number of provisions that may significantly affect children and their rights, leading to legal uncertainty for data controllers, parents and children. This uncertainty relates for instance to the age of consent for processing children's data in relation to information society services, the technical requirements regarding parental consent in that regard, the interpretation of the extent to which profiling of children is allowed and the level of transparency that is required vis-à-vis children. This article aims to identify a number of key issues and questions – both theoretical and practical – that raise concerns from a multi-dimensional children's rights perspective, and to clarify remaining ambiguities in the run-up to the actual application of the GDPR from 25 May 2018 onwards.     

E-Commerce and Privacy Issues: An Analysis of the Personal Data Protection Bill

One of the concerns of e-commerce is the need to maintain users' privacy online. The usage of technical means to track down user's surfing and purchasing tendencies by the use of cookies, and sniffers to capture data while in the course of transmissions, has raised significant privacy issues. These anonymous data minings, although they may not necessarily bring harm to customers, nevertheless are a form of intrusion into one's privacy in cyberspace. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission has submitted a self-regulatory plan to require Web advertising companies to notify consumers of their Internet profiling activities and to give the customers the chance to choose whether information about Web activities and interests can be gathered anonymously. It is for this purpose that the Malaysian legislators devised the Personal Data Protection Bill. The importance of this is made clear in the explanatory statement of the personal data protection bill in Malaysia. The draft bill makes the law in Malaysia closer to the EU regime, which chooses legislation over self-regulation in this area. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature, manner and scope of personal data protection under the Malaysian Bill.     

Normative challenges of identification in the Internet of Things: Privacy,profiling, discrimination,and the GDPR

In the Internet of Things (IoT), identification and access control technologies provide essential infrastructure to link data between a user's devices with unique identities, and provide seamless and linked up services. At the same time, profiling methods based on linked records can reveal unexpected details about users' identity and private life, which can conflict with privacy rights and lead to economic, social, and other forms of discriminatory treatment. A balance must be struck between identification and access control required for the IoT to function and user rights to privacy and identity. Striking this balance is not an easy task because of weaknesses in cybersecurity and anonymisation techniques. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), set to come into force in May 2018, may provide essential guidance to achieve a fair balance between the interests of IoT providers and users. Through a review of academic and policy literature, this paper maps the inherent tension between privacy and identifiability in the IoT. It focuses on four challenges: (1) profiling, inference, and discrimination; (2) control and context-sensitive sharing of identity; (3) consent and uncertainty; and (4) honesty, trust, and transparency. The paper will then examine the extent to which several standards defined in the GDPR will provide meaningful protection for privacy and control over identity for users of IoT. The paper concludes that in order to minimise the privacy impact of the conflicts between data protection principles and identification in the IoT, GDPR standards urgently require further specification and implementation into the design and deployment of IoT technologies.     

The limits of privacy in automated profiling and data mining

Automated profiling of groups and individuals is a common practice in our information society. The increasing possibilities of data mining significantly enhance the abilities to carry out such profiling. Depending on its application, profiling and data mining may cause particular risks such as discrimination, de-individualisation and information asymmetries. In this article we provide an overview of the risks associated with data mining and the strategies that have been proposed over the years to mitigate these risks. From there we shall examine whether current safeguards that are mainly based on privacy and data protection law (such as data minimisation and data exclusion) are sufficient. Based on these findings we shall suggest alternative policy options and regulatory instruments for dealing with the risks of data mining, integrating ideas from the field of computer science and that of law and ethics.     

美国信息隐私立法透析

美国法以隐私权作为个人信息保护的权利基础,在公领域,实行分散立法模式;在私领域,美国选择了行业自律模式,在全球个人信息保护立法中产生了巨大的影响。美国制定信息隐私保护政策和法律的基本思路是力求在信息流通和隐私保护之间寻求平衡。信息隐私权是美国信息隐私法上的一个核心概念,它是随着社会对个人信息的保护而产生的,指个人针对其信息所享有决定权、支配权和控制权。     

The European Union's approach to online behavioural advertising: Protecting individuals or restricting business?

The European Union (EU) has firmly set its stall out to protect individuals' data and privacy and has demonstrated this through the rejection of the old opt-out regime and the introduction of the new opt-in rules. These require businesses to obtain individual's prior and informed consent before their data are collected, stored and used for the purposes of online behavioural advertising (OBA). Individuals in the EU are afforded protection from the apparent dangers relating to data privacy and misuse that is associated with OBA, which is beyond the expectation of most Internet users. However, there are some criticisms levelled at the law that the EU has produced. Is simply gaining informed consent sufficient for protecting all types of information? Do certain types of information require a higher level of consent than others? Does the law fulfil its aim of protecting data subject's privacy and data? Is the current law restrictive to business? Do individuals know or care that their information is being collected for the purposes of targeted advertising and is there a better way to ensure that they do? Finally, will proposed new law to be found in the EU Data Protection Regulation solve any of these problems? This article will assess whether, as a policy decision, the EU's current approach has been too cautious in its attempts to protect individuals or restrict business.     

Secrecy and Seclusion: Developments in Privacy Insurance Law

Privacy has become big news. Our society has an epidemic of identity theft, loss of personal data, blast faxing, and data mining. The wave of new privacy litigation has led to a wave of privacy insurance litigation, particularly with respect to coverage for blast faxes—unsolicited and unwanted facsimiles which bombard businesses and individuals. The main debate results from the fact that while the advertising injury section of the general liability policy provides some coverage for invasion of privacy, the new privacy causes of action do not necessarily fit the insurance policy's coverage. For example, while blast faxes invade the recipient's privacy or seclusion, insurers assert that the faxes do not involve the publication of secret material. To meet this problem, insurers are writing new tech or cyber policies that provide far more expansive coverage for privacy.     

Police hiring and retention of sexual minorities in Georgia and Texas after Lawrence v. Texas

In this telephone interview study, hiring and retention policies and practices relevant to sexual minority officers among twenty selected police departments in Georgia and Texas were examined. The authors examined policies and practices in place before and after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down Texas' sodomy law on grounds that it violated due process and the right to privacy, in effect decriminalizing homosexual conduct throughout the nation. Conclusions and policy implications for law enforcement hiring practices in light of this landmark decision are discussed.