Clarity,surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party's recent draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling seeks to clarify European data protection (DP) law's little-used right to prevent automated decision-making, as well as the provisions around profiling more broadly, in the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation. In this paper, we analyse these new guidelines in the context of recent scholarly debates and technological concerns. They foray into the less-trodden areas of bias and non-discrimination, the significance of advertising, the nature of “solely” automated decisions, impacts upon groups and the inference of special categories of data—at times, appearing more to be making or extending rules than to be interpreting them. At the same time, they provide only partial clarity – and perhaps even some extra confusion – around both the much discussed “right to an explanation” and the apparent prohibition on significant automated decisions concerning children. The Working Party appears to feel less mandated to adjudicate in these conflicts between the recitals and the enacting articles than to explore altogether new avenues. Nevertheless, the directions they choose to explore are particularly important ones for the future governance of machine learning and artificial intelligence in Europe and beyond.     

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.     

European national news

This article tracks developments at the national level in key European countries in the area of IT and communications and provides a concise alerting service of important national developments. It is co-ordinated by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP and contributed to by firms across Europe. This column provides a concise alerting service of important national developments in key European countries. Part of its purpose is to complement the Journal's feature articles and briefing notes by keeping readers abreast of what is currently happening “on the ground” at a national level in implementing EU level legislation and international conventions and treaties. Where an item of European National News is of particular significance, CLSR may also cover it in more detail in the current or a subsequent edition.     

Asia Pacific news

This column provides a country-by-country analysis of the latest legal developments, cases and issues relevant to the IT, media and telecommunications’ industries in key jurisdictions across the Asia Pacific region. The articles appearing in this column are intended to serve as ‘alerts’ and are not submitted as detailed analyses of cases or legal developments.     

试论《食品安全法》中关于消费者权益保护的欠缺

消费者是食品链中最大的群体。《食品安全法》的立法之本是为了保护消费者的安全,但是《食品安全法》在消费者权益保护方面却存在很多问题,比如,食品安全概念的狭隘,某些法条难以实施,与其它法律之间互相矛盾等。本文分析了《食品安全法》关于消费者权益保护的欠缺之处,并提出了修改建议。食品药品监督管理总局的成立及食品安全监管部门职能的调整改变了以前分段管理的模式,《食品安全法》要做相应的修改。希望在《食品安全法》的修订过程中可以加强对消费者权益的保护,增加该法的实用性。     

Déjà vu! The effect of previewing test items on the validity of the Concealed Information polygraph Test

Abstract

This research compares resident, peer and staff reports of bullying and victimization in one open facility and one secure facility for young offenders. The prevalence of bullies and victims was higher according to resident reports (self-reports) than according to peer or staff reports. There was significant agreement between residents, peers, and staff in identifying bullies and victims. The majority of bullies and victims identified by peers and/or staff were also identified by self-reports. Making the plausible assumption that bullies and victims tend to be concealed, it is concluded that self-reports (in the context of an individual interview) provide the most reliable and valid information about bullies and victims in young offender institutions. Hence, anti-bullying strategies should be based on self-report data.     

公安院校治安类课程与信息技术整合的思考——以上海公安高等专科学校“视频巡逻”课程为例

信息技术与课程整合是指将信息技术有机地与教学结构、课程内容、课程资源以及课程实施等融合为一体,使其成为课程的有机组成部分,成为与课程内容和课程实施高度和谐自然的有机部分。上海公安高等专科学校正是基于以上理念,对治安类课程与信息技术整合进行了为期三年的实践探索,并取得了一定的成效。     

人民检察院适用非法证据排除规则的程序化构建

2012《刑事诉讼法》及《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则（试行）》继《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》之后对人民检察院在审前程序中适用非法证据排除规则作了相关的规定,这对于强化对侦查行为合法性的监督、保障犯罪嫌疑人的人权具有重要作用,但是当前的规定还是存在一些不足之处,这将制约其作用的发挥。因此,有必要对其进行“程序化”,构建专门的听证程序,明确相关的程序性规定,增强其可操作性。