Backups and the right to be forgotten in the GDPR: An uneasy relationship

The recent enforcement of the GDPR has put extra burdens to data controllers operating within the EU. Beyond other challenges, the exercise of the Right to be Forgotten by individuals who request erasure of their personal information has also become a thorny issue when applied to backups and archives. In this paper, we discuss the GDPR forgetting requirements in respect with their impact on the backup and archiving procedures stipulated by the modern security standards. We specifically examine the implications of erasure requests on current IT backup systems and we highlight a number of envisaged organizational, business and technical challenges pertained to the widely known backup standards, data retention policies, backup mediums, search services, and ERP systems.     

The right to data portability in the GDPR: Towards user-centric interoperability of digital services

The right to data portability is one of the most important novelties within the EU General Data Protection Regulation, both in terms of warranting control rights to data subjects and in terms of being found at the intersection between data protection and other fields of law (competition law, intellectual property, consumer protection, etc.). It constitutes, thus, a valuable case of development and diffusion of effective user-centric privacy enhancing technologies and a first tool to allow individuals to enjoy the immaterial wealth of their personal data in the data economy. Indeed, a free portability of personal data from one controller to another can be a strong tool for data subjects in order to foster competition of digital services and interoperability of platforms and in order to enhance controllership of individuals on their own data. However, the adopted formulation of the right to data portability in the GDPR could benefit from further clarification: several interpretations are possible, particularly with regard to the object of the right and its interrelation with other rights, potentially leading to additional challenges within its technical implementation. The aim of this article is to propose a first systematic interpretation of this new right, by suggesting a pragmatic and extensive approach, particularly taking advantage as much as possible of the interrelationship that this new legal provision can have with regard to the Digital Single Market and the fundamental rights of digital users. In sum, the right to data portability can be approximated under two different perspectives: the minimalist approach (the adieu scenario) and the empowering approach (the fusing scenario), which the authors consider highly preferable.     

Tax incentives for innovation: time to restructure the R&;E tax credit

The R&E tax credit has never been effective and subsequent attempts to restructure it have not addressed the major deficiencies. Moreover, in the 25 years since the R&E tax credit was enacted, a steadily increasing number of countries have implemented or expanded competing tax incentives, which in many cases are better structured and larger in size. As a result, the relative impact of the US credit is now negative in terms of incentives to conduct R&D within the domestic economy. The inadequacy of the credit stems largely from its small size and its incremental format. The impact of an R&D tax incentive is affected by its scope of coverage, the ability of industry to take advantage of it over the entire R&D cycle, the magnitude of the incentive relative to other nations’ tax policies, and its ease of implementation. In the end, a tax incentive must sufficiently lower the user’s cost of R&D to overcome barriers to allocation of private-sector resources commensurate with the potential rates of return on such investments. As a policy instrument, a tax incentive for R&D should be most effective if its form is a flat rate applied to all R&D.

Expanding the R&;E tax credit to drive innovation,competitiveness and prosperity

The research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit has long been the subject of criticism. Some argue that if the goal is more research and innovation, it’s better to increase direct federal funding of research. Others argue that the credit is not effective, that companies would do the research in any case. Some object the very notion of using tax policy to influence private sector behavior, preferring instead a more “neutral” tax code. Still others, including Tassey in this volume, point to what they see are a host of design flaws in the current credit, including that its incremental nature reduces its effectiveness. I will argue here that most of these arguments are mistaken. To promote innovation in a global economy both direct funding and indirect tax incentives are needed. The credit, while it can be improved, has been shown to be effective in stimulating research. Moreover, far from distorting the market, the credit corrects for a market failure where firms are unable to capture all of the benefits of corporate research, leading them to under invest in research. Finally, while reform and expansion are needed, it would be a mistake to shift to a completely flat credit. However, several important changes should be made including doubling the current value of the credit, modifying the Alternative Simplified Credit to become incremental, and expanding the flat credit for collaborative R&D.

行政知情权的必要性及其价值的法理解析

行政知情权作为其他公民权利的前提性权利,是人民主权、控权理念与制度的内在逻辑,也是当今信息社会保障信息自由进而实现权力与权利均衡的必然要求。明确行政知情权的必要性与价值,加快相关立法,对于推进我国的民主、法治和宪政进程具有重大意义。     

China's new regulatory regime tailored for the sharing economy: The case of Uber under Chinese local government regulation in comparison to the EU,US, and the UK

Although Uber's arrival in China has resulted in disruptive competition for incumbent taxi companies, it offers an attractive alternative in China's supply-demand-imbalanced urban passenger transport system. China's regulatory regime for Uber has evolved in three stages: from the regulatory vacuum prior to 2015 to its official legalization in 2015–2016, and the enactment of numerous local regulations in 2016, with specific and more demanding requirements for Uber. This policy is a part of the Chinese approach to the gradual liberalization of the urban passenger transport market. Policymakers should consider ‘fair competition’ as the guiding principle to balance the interests of sharing firms and incumbent service providers, as well as between different sharing firms. The core value of this principle lies in the benefits it provides for consumers and the way it engenders a pro-competitive market environment. The labor protection arrangements for sharing firms’ laborers should be more flexible and diversified. In order to recognize whether an Uber-Driver is an employee or independent contractor, a new standard taking into account a range of factors should be established through collective negotiations between the participants of the sharing economy, and dialogues between members of the judiciary, academics, and the policymakers. Further, consumer protection law and personal data protection provisions should apply when sharing firms misuse their distinctive algorithmic management model to compete unfairly to the detriment of consumers and other users. Ex ante regulatory measures designed to protect the personal data of users should be introduced for deployment in the context of the sharing economy. When enforcing these rules, a balance should be struck ensuring free data flow that is essential to sharing firms’ innovation and competition, and the need to ensure the level of data security required to underpin a well-functioning sharing society.