Five years of the APEC Privacy Framework: Failure or promise?

The APEC Privacy Framework was developed from 2003, adopted by APEC in 2004 and finalised in 2005. It was intended as a means of improving the standard of information privacy protection throughout the APEC countries of the Asia–Pacific, and of facilitating the trans-border flow of personal information between those countries. In 2007 a number of ‘Pathfinder’ projects for cross-border data transfers were launched under the Framework. In the five years since the process commenced, what has it achieved, and what is it likely to achieve? This paper argues that the APEC Privacy Framework has had many flaws from its inception, including Privacy Principles that are unnecessarily weak, and no meaningful enforcement requirements. Since its adoption in 2004, little attempt has been made to encourage its use as a minimal standard for privacy legislation in developing countries (which might have been useful), and it is having little impact on the significant number of legislative developments now taking place.     

Data protection: The future of privacy

The Art. 29 Working Party (hereinafter “Art. 29 WP”) is an influential body comprised of representatives from the Member State Data Protection Authorities² established under the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, has recently issued an opinion with the Working Party on Police and Justice. This is quite significant, since the opinion sets out some of the issues that will need to be addressed in the lead up to the revision of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.³ This comes at a time, when there have been discussions on the current application of the European Data Protection Directive to the internet,⁴ (such as social networking) and the recent European Commission’s consultation on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data. Not least, there have been a number of cases brought before the European Court of Justice dealing with the partial implementation of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.⁵The aim of this paper is to consider in detail the issues set out by the Art. 29 WP and the likely challenges in revising the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.     

Protecting the communication: Data protection and security measures under telecommunications regulations in the digital age

This paper aims to provide a comparative overview and evaluation of various legal frameworks for electronic communications security in light of the recent developments in the electronic communications sector. The article also includes an insight on European Union and Turkish legal environment for data protection security in electronic communications sector.     

The General Data Protection Regulation and the rise of certification as a regulatory instrument

The endorsement of certification in Article 42 and 43 of the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) extends the scope of this procedure to the enforcement of fundamental rights. The GDPR also leverages the high flexibility of this procedure to make of certification something else than a voluntary process attesting the conformity with technical standards. This paper argues that the GDPR turned certification into a new regulatory instrument in data protection, I suggest to call it monitored self-regulation, seeking to fill the gap between self-regulation and traditional regulation in order to build a regulation continuum.     

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.     

Data security: Past,present and future

The loss by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) of two CDs containing 25 million child benefit details has changed the data security landscape forever. No longer is data security the exclusive and rather arcane preserve of spotty technology professionals or data protection lawyers. HMRC has thrust data security onto the front pages of the mainstream media and brought it very suddenly to the top of the political and commercial agendas of senior politicians and boards of directors. In this article, the author will outline the reasons behind the rise of data security as a front line issue and examine the lessons to be learnt from HMRC. He will analyse the different facets of data security risk and explore ways in which organisations can go about managing it. He will outline the attitude of regulators to data security and where regulatory developments are likely to take us. The final part of the article looks into the future, with particular focus on the emergence of privacy enhancing technologies.     

Citizens' perceptions of data protection and privacy in Europe

Data protection and privacy gain social importance as technology and data flows play an ever greater role in shaping social structure. Despite this, understanding of public opinion on these issues is conspicuously lacking. This article is a meta-analysis of public opinion surveys on data protection and privacy focussed on EU citizens. The article firstly considers the understanding and awareness of the legal framework for protection as a solid manifestation of the complex concepts of data protection and privacy. This is followed by a consideration of perceptions of privacy and data protection in relation to other social goals, focussing on the most visible of these contexts–the debate surrounding privacy, data protection and security. The article then considers how citizens perceive the ‘real world’ environment in which data processing takes place, before finally considering the public's perception and evaluation of the operation of framework against environment.     

The legal construction of privacy and data protection

In this contribution, the authors explore the differences and interplays between the rights to privacy and data protection. They describe the two rights and come to the conclusion that they differ both formally and substantially, though overlaps are not to be excluded. Given these different yet not mutually exclusive scopes they then apply the rights to three case-studies (body-scanners, human enhancement technologies, genome sequencing), highlighting in each case potential legal differences concerning the scope of the rights, the role of consent, and the meaning of the proportionality test. Finally, and on the basis of these cases, the authors propose paths for articulating the two rights using the qualitative and quantitative thresholds of the two rights, which leads them to rethink the relationship between privacy and data protection, and ultimately, the status of data protection as a fundamental right.     

From ugly duckling to Swan. The rise of data protection and its limits

This article considers the development of data protection laws from a position on the periphery of legal consciousness to the situation where it is the subject of intensive legal and media publicity. Focusing on the recent controversies surrounding the use of Facebook apps for political purposes, the article will consider the role and limitations of data and privacy protection laws. The question will be posed – if not answered – whether national or regional laws can be effective in what increasingly is a global information society.     

Russian PNR system: Data protection issues and global prospects

The usage of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for security purposes is growing worldwide. At least six countries have PNR systems; over thirty are planning to introduce them. On 1 December 2013, a Russian PNR system will be implemented. But enhanced collection of personal data leads to increased surveillance and privacy concerns. Russian authorities state that passengers' rights will be respected, but a closer look at the Russian regime reveals a number of critical points. From a global perspective, the Russian regime is only one of many PNR systems, including new ones to come in the future. Apparently, for the majority of them, similar challenges and problems will apply. At the same time, for the EU, with its strict data protection requirements, PNR requests by third countries (i.e. non-EU countries) create conflicts of laws. In order to resolve them, the EU concludes bilateral PNR agreements. However, the current deals, especially the one between the EU and the USA, involve a number of weaknesses. Accepting the latter, and having a pending proposal on the EU PNR system, the EU has weakened its position in negotiations with third countries. How will the EU deal with the Russian as well as with all the future requests for PNR? This paper provides legal analysis of the Russian PNR regime, pointing out common problems and giving prognosis on the global situation.     

Comments to the CoE Convention 108 draft proposal on data protection

One year after the public consultation on the modernisation of the Convention 108, the Council of Europe issued the latest modernization proposal in March 2012 reviewed on the basis of the 27th Plenary meeting of the Consultative Committee of the Convention (from 29 November to 2 December 2012) and the 26th meeting of its Bureau (from 6 to 8 February 2012). Professor Graham Greenleaf and Mr. Nigel Waters on behalf of the Australian Privacy Foundation International Committee and a consortium headed by CLSR Editorial Board member Professor Sylvia Kierkegaard together with Dr. Elisabeth Thole, Professor Dr. Willem Grosheide and CLSR Professional Board Member Joseph V. DeMarco submitted separately their comments to the proposed text. Plenary meeting of the Consultative Committee of the Convention 108 will take place in Strasbourg from 19 to 22 June 2012, during when the draft text will be approved.     

Personal data protection in employment: New legal challenges for Malaysia

The purpose of this article is to discuss and apply data protection principles in the context of employment. The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), passed by the Malaysian Parliament in 2010, has affected many aspects of life in Malaysia, including employment. Storage of data by employers is rampant. Management, as the data user, is duty bound to safeguard the employees' data according to the PDPA. Likewise, the employees, as data subjects, enjoy some rights under the PDPA. The author also examines issues of privacy law: whether such law exists in Malaysia and, if so, whether it can be reconciled with the PDPA's principles. The author adopts legal methodology anchored in exploratory analysis, with the legislative text as the main reference point.     

An international legal framework for data protection: Issues and prospects

The processing of personal data across national borders by both governments and the private sector has increased exponentially in recent years, as has the need for legal protections for personal data. This article examines calls for a global legal framework for data protection, and in particular suggestions that have been made in this regard by the International Law Commission and various national data protection authorities. It first examines the scope of a potential legal framework, and proceeds to analyze the status of data protection in international law. The article then considers the various options through which an international framework could be enacted, before drawing some conclusions about the form and scope such a framework could take, the institutions that could coordinate the work on it, and whether the time is ripe for a multinational convention on data protection.     

Opening up personal data protection: A conceptual controversy

The existence of a fundamental right to the protection of personal data in European Union (EU) law is nowadays undisputed. Established in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000, it is increasingly permeating EU secondary law, and is expected to play a key role in the future EU personal data protection landscape. The right's reinforced visibility has rendered manifest the co-existence of two possible and contrasting interpretations as to what it come to mean. If some envision it as a primarily permissive right, enabling the processing of such data under certain conditions, others picture it as having a prohibitive nature, implying that any processing of data is a limitation of the right, be it legitimate or illegitimate. This paper investigates existing tensions between different understandings of the right to the protection of personal data, and explores the assumptions and conceptual legacies underlying both approaches. It traces their historical lineages, and, focusing on the right to personal data protection as established by the EU Charter, analyses the different arguments that can ground contrasted readings of its Article 8. It also reviews the conceptualisations of personal data protection as present in the literature, and finally contrasts all these perspectives with the construal of the right by the EU Court of Justice.     

e-Youth before its judges - Legal protection of minors in cyberspace

The present paper¹ aims both at introducing the legal aspects of the protection of minors in cyberspace and analysing and criticizing certain main features embedded in this legal approach of young people protection. After a short introduction underlining the concept of child’s rights and the reason why this right has been particularly proclaimed in the context of the cyberspace, the first section describes the new technological features of the ICT environment and linked to this evolution the increasing risks the minors are confronted with. A typology of cyber abuses is proposed on the basis of these considerations. A list of EU or Council of Europe texts directly or indirectly related to the minors’ protection into the cyberspace is provided. The second section intends to analyse certain characteristics of the legal approach as regards the ways by which that protection is conceived and effectively ensured. Different principles and methods might be considered as keywords summarizing the legal approach and to a certain extent, fixing a partition of responsibilities taking fully into account the diversity of actors might be deduced from the different regulatory documents.The third section comes back to the different complementary means by which the Law is envisaging the minors’ protection. The obligation to create awareness about the potential risks minors might incur definitively is the first one. The omnipresent reference in all the legal texts to the role of self-regulatory interventions constitutes another pillar of the protection envisaged by the Law. After having described the multiple instruments developed in the context of this self-regulation (labels, codes of conduct, hotlines, ODR…) or even co-regulation, the paper examines the conditions set by the European legislators as regards these instruments. Technology might be considered as a fourth method for protecting children. Our concern will be to see how the Law is addressing new requirements as regards the technological solutions and their implementation. The present debates about the liability of the actors involved in applications or services targeted or not vis-à-vis the minors like SNS or VSP operators are evoked. As a final point the question of the increasing competences of LEA and the reinforcement of the criminal provisions in order to fight cyber abuses against minors will be debated. In conclusion, we will address final recommendations about the way by which it would be possible to reconcile effective minors’ protection and liberties into the cyberspace.     

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.     

Independence of data privacy authorities (Part II): Asia-Pacific experience

Part I of this article in [2012] 28 CLSR 3-13 analysed the views of learned commentators on what constitutes the ‘independence’ of data protection authorities (DPAs). It concluded that a more satisfactory answer needed to be found in the international instruments on data privacy and on human rights bodies, their implementation and judicial interpretation, and in the standards that have been proposed and implemented by DPAs themselves. It found that only the OECD and APEC privacy agreements did not require a DPA (and therefore had no standards for its independence). Thirteen factors were identified as elements of ‘independence’ across these instruments and standards, five of which were more commonly found than others.     

Towards a new generation of CCTV networks: Erosion of data protection safeguards?

CCTV networks are progressively being replaced by more flexible and adaptable video surveillance systems based on internet protocol (IP) technologies. The use of wireless IP systems allows for the emergence of flexible networks and for their customization, while at the same time video analytics is easing the retrieval of the most relevant information. These technological advances, however, bring with them threats of a new kind for fundamental freedoms that cannot always be properly assessed by current legal safeguards. This paper analyses the ability of current data protection laws in providing an adequate answer to these new risks.     

The future of consumer data protection in the E.U. Re-thinking the “notice and consent” paradigm in the new era of predictive analytics

The new E.U. proposal for a general data protection regulation has been introduced to give an answer to the challenges of the evolving digital environment. In some cases, these expectations could be disappointed, since the proposal is still based on the traditional main pillars of the last generation of data protection laws. In the field of consumer data protection, these pillars are the purpose specification principle, the use limitation principle and the “notice and consent” model. Nevertheless, the complexity of data processing, the power of modern analytics and the “transformative” use of personal information drastically limit the awareness of consumers, their capability to evaluate the various consequences of their choices and to give a free and informed consent.     

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.