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.     

For privacy's sake: Consumer “opt outs” for smart meters

When balancing consumer privacy and data protection rights with the important societal benefits to be obtained from smart meters, should consumers be allowed to opt out? If so, what should a smart meter opt out mechanism look like? Further, may consumers be charged additional fees for the privilege of opting out without violating their privacy and data protection rights? The EU/U.S. comparative law analysis provided in this paper aims to help energy suppliers and regulators craft opt out mechanisms to protect individual privacy and data protection rights while also achieving important societal benefits from smart meters.     

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.     

Is “Big Data” creepy?

We now live in a world of Big Data, massive repositories of structured, unstructured or semi-structured data. This is seen as a valuable resource for organisations, given the potential to analyse and exploit that data to turn it into useful information. However, the cost and risk of continuing to hold that data can also make it a burden for many organisations.     

Data protection 1998–2008

This article reviews key developments in data protection legislation, case law and practice between 1998 and 2008. Over this time data protection has become a mainstream compliance topic for business and government alike. Having started in 1998 as a specialist area of limited general application, over the decade this area of law has been widely applied to access rights, international transfers of information and data losses. We are now seeing major changes in enforcement of data protection legislation (including the power to fine and increased use of audits) which will continue the focus on compliance.     

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.     

Data protection in the Asia-Pacific region

The increasing reliance on technology as a means of conducting cross-border businesses has spurred on the development of data protection and privacy laws in many countries across the globe. In Asia, however, many countries today still have no or extremely limited data protection laws. Cultural attitudes towards the concept of autonomy and the well-established right of certain governments to monitor and scrutinise its people in certain countries have been partly to blame. However, in order to remain economically viable, the businesses and government of these countries must be able to provide protections which are at least similar to those afforded by the data protection laws of their business counterparts. This article examines the effectiveness and relevance of the APEC Privacy Framework and the state of the data protection laws in eight Asia-Pacific countries today.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Privacy and the regulation of 2012

This paper explores the European Commission’s proposal for a new Regulation to update and reform data protection law in Europe. As regards the Regulation itself, without presenting an exhaustive analysis of all the provisions, this paper aims to highlight some significant changes proposed to the data protection regime by comparison between Directive 95/46 and the proposed Regulation. It takes particularly into account legislative innovation concerning data protection principles, data subjects’ rights, data controllers and data processors obligations, and the regulation of technologies. Before analyzing these innovations, it introduces some considerations about the Commission’s choice to use a Regulation instead of a Directive to harmonize national data protection regime.     

Sorting out smart surveillance

Surveillance is becoming ubiquitous in our society. We can also see the emergence of “smart” surveillance technologies and the assemblages (or combinations) of such technologies, supposedly to combat crime and terrorism, but in fact used for a variety of purposes, many of which are intrusive upon the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Following the dark days of 9/11, security and surveillance became paramount. More recently, in Europe, there has been a policy commitment to restore privacy to centre stage. This paper examines the legal tools available to ensure that privacy and personal data protection are respected in attempts to ensure the security of our society, and finds that improvements are needed in our legal and regulatory framework if privacy is indeed to be respected by law enforcement authorities and intelligence agencies. It then goes on to argue that privacy impact assessments should be used to sort out the necessity and proportionality of security and surveillance programmes and policies vis-à-vis privacy.     

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.     

Are ‘pseudonymised’ data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK

There has naturally been a good deal of discussion of the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. One issue of interest to all data controllers, and of particular concern for researchers, is whether the GDPR expands the scope of personal data through the introduction of the term ‘pseudonymisation’ in Article 4(5). If all data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of the word (e.g. key-coded) are to be treated as personal data, this would have serious implications for research. Administrative data research, which is carried out on data routinely collected and held by public authorities, would be particularly affected as the sharing of de-identified data could constitute the unconsented disclosure of identifiable information.Instead, however, we argue that the definition of pseudonymisation in Article 4(5) GDPR will not expand the category of personal data, and that there is no intention that it should do so. The definition of pseudonymisation under the GDPR is not intended to determine whether data are personal data; indeed it is clear that all data falling within this definition are personal data. Rather, it is Recital 26 and its requirement of a ‘means reasonably likely to be used’ which remains the relevant test as to whether data are personal. This leaves open the possibility that data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of key-coding can still be rendered anonymous. There may also be circumstances in which data which have undergone pseudonymisation within one organisation could be anonymous for a third party. We explain how, with reference to the data environment factors as set out in the UK Anonymisation Network's Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework.     

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.     

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.     

The state of the art in privacy impact assessment

There is growing interest in Europe in privacy impact assessment (PIA). The UK introduced the first PIA methodology in Europe in 2007, and Ireland followed in 2010. PIAs provide a way to detect potential privacy problems, take precautions and build tailored safeguards before, not after, the organisation makes heavy investments in the development of a new technology, service or product. This paper presents some findings from the Privacy Impact Assessment Framework (PIAF) project and, in particular, the project's first deliverable, which analyses the similarities and differences between PIA methodologies in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, with a view to picking out the best elements which could be used in constructing an optimised PIA methodology for Europe. The project, which began in January 2011, is being undertaken for the European Commission's Directorate General Justice. The first deliverable was completed in September. The paper provides some background on privacy impact assessment, identifies some of its benefits and discusses elements that can be used in construction of a state-of-the-art PIA methodology.     

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.