Search

International audience; With the advent of new technologies, new means of surveillance and data collection have appeared on the radar. Drones are among the latest to be considered for domestic security purposes, both in the EU and the USA. After surveying some examples of the non-warfare use of drone for security and criminal justice purposes, this article analyses applicable privacy and data protection legislation and constitutional guarantees, on both sides of the Atlantic. This study extends to the application to drone-generated data of, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, Council of Europe instruments, and the EU Data Protection Framework, highlighting challenges to civil liberties and tensions between these and national security and justice concerns. Finally, this article looks briefly at proposals for legislative reform regarding drones at the US State and Federal levels and prospects for future legislation.

Bu çalışmada Türk hukuk sistemi içerisinde demokratik hukuk devleti olmanın gereklerinden biri olan kişinin korunması ve kişisel verilerin korunması incelenmiştir. Teknolojinin ve iletişimin hızla geliştiği günümüz dünyasında, kişilik hakkı ve kişisel veriler zarar görebilmektedir. Kişisel verilerin gelişen teknoloji ile birlikte elektronik ortamlarda işlenmesi daha da artmıştır. Kişisel verilerin işlenmesi, işleniş şekli ve verilerin daha kolay paylaşılması hususunda son zamanlarda meydana gelen gelişmeler ulusal ve uluslararası alanda birçok yasal düzenlemenin yapılmasına sebep olmuştur. Çağımızda her türlü bilgi serbest dolaşabilmelidir ama bu durum kişilik haklarına zarar vermemelidir. Kişiye bağlı temel hakları korumak için birçok ülke, özellikle Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkeler, yeni yasal düzenlemeler ve direktifler kabul etmişlerdir. Avrupa Birliğine üyelik aşamasında olan Türkiye de birlikle arasındaki hukuki eksiklikleri bir an önce tamamlayıp, temel insan hakları ve özgürlükler bağlamında insanların yaşam standartlarını yükseltmeye, hak ve hürriyetleri koruyup güçlendirmeye ve demokrasiyi yükseltmeye devam etmelidir. Çalışmamızda birlik üyesi ülkelerin hukuki düzenlemeleri kronolojik olarak incelenmiştir ve Türkiye bağlamında yapılan yasal düzenlemeler kıyaslanmıştır. Türkiye, Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanun Tasarısı'nı henüz yürürlüğe sokamadığından kişisel verilerin korunması hakkını tam olarak güvence altına alamamıştır.Anahtar Sözcükler: İnsan Hakları, Kişisel Verilerin Korunmasında Uluslararası Düzenlemeler ve Türkiye Örneği, Kişisel Veriler. In this study within the Turkish legal system is supposed to be a democratic state of law and the protection of persons, one of the protection of personal data has been analyzed. The rapid development of technology and communication in today's world, personal rights and personal data may be damaged. With the advancing technology of personal data processing in the electronic media has increased. The processing of personal data, processing shape and easier sharing of data with regard to developments that occurred recently in the area of national and international performing has led to many legal regulations. In our age should be able to circulate freely all kinds of information, but it must not impair the rights of persons. To protect the fundamental rights of persons connected to many countries, especially the European Union member states, have adopted new regulations and directives. European Union accession phase, Turkey unity between the legal deficiencies as soon as you complete the basic human rights and freedoms in the context of people's living standards to raise their rights and freedoms protect and strengthen democracy and the upgrade should continue. In our study, associations of legal regulations of the member countries and Turkey were examined chronologically in the context of the legal arrangements were compared. Turkey, Protection of personal data bill can not yet enacted the right to protection of personal data has not been fully secured.Key Words: Human Rights, İnternational Regulations On Personal Data Protection and Turkey Samples, Personal Data. 108

The proposed data protection regulation2 includes mention of the use of criminal and administrative sanctions. Both were possible in EU data protection law but, after the reform, the use of administrative sanctions will become mandatory. With regard to criminal sanctions to address data protection wrongs, nothing changes: member states can choose to create them or not. Why is the new EU, with its enhanced post-Lisbon powers, so timid and '1995-ish' with regard to criminal law? How is it possible that, to reform a set of rules created by a directive, a regulation is chosen with the aim of harmonising just about everything in EU data protection law, but not the chapter on sanctions and enforcement? This contribution lists some explanatory factors and reflects on future regulatory choices in member states.

The year 2010 set an important milestone in the development of data protection law in Europe: both Europe's basic regulatory texts, the EU Data Protection Directive and the Council's Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108), were placed at an amendment process, having served individual data protection for many years and witnessed in the meantime technological developments that threatened to make their provisions obsolete. After briefly presenting Convention 108, the analysis that follows will highlight the Council's data protection system currently in effect as well as developments relating to the Convention's amendment so far with the aim of identifying improvements and shortcomings. While doing this two separate points of view shall be adopted: at first a micro point of view will attempt to identify improvements and shortcomings through an ‘insider’ perspective, that is, judging only the merits and difficulties of the draft text at hand. Afterwards a macroscopic view will be adopted, whereby strategic issues will be discussed pertaining to the important issue of the relationship of the suggested draft with the EU data protection system, as well as, the same draft's potential to constitute the next global information privacy standard.

There are a number of novel technologies and a broad range of research aimed at the collection and use of data drawn directly from the human brain. Given that this data – neurodata – is data collected from individuals, one area of law which will be of relevance is data protection. The thesis of this paper is that neurodata is a unique form of data and that this will raise questions for the application of data protection law. Issues may arise on two levels. On a legal technical level, it is uncertain whether the definitions and mechanisms used in the data protection framework can be easily applied to neurodata. On a more fundamental level, there may be interests in neurodata, particularly those related to the protection of the mind, the framework was not designed to represent and may be insufficiently equipped, or constructed, to deal with.

The completion of the second five-year term of the first European Data Protection Supervisor finds his office a quite different organisation than the one described, or even envisaged, in its establishment document back in 2001.1 As it will be immediately demonstrated, in particular the exercise of his consultative task (one of his three main tasks, together with supervision and co-operation) has transformed his office from a, perceivably, mostly controlling authority into an important, if not central, participant in the EU law-making process on all data protection matters. Although it is perhaps too early to assess whether this development is the result of external or internal factors, this analysis shall attempt exactly that: after briefly demonstrating the change that occurred in the EDPS office status, it shall attempt to analyse the factors that led to it. Finally, a third part shall discuss the future, particularly in view of the EU data protection reform package currently under way.

Vanavond zendt "Panorama" een reportage uit over de lobby-oorlog die momenteel gevoerd wordt in het Europees Parlement rond de nieuwe privacywetgeving die op stapel staat. Europa wil de privacy van zijn burgers beter beschermen, maar grote internetbedrijven trachten daar via lobbywerk tegen in te gaan. De belangen zijn groot, want bedrijven als Facebook en Google kunnen gigantische winsten maken met privégegevens van hun klanten. Tegen de ontwerp-regelgeving hebben EU-parlementsleden meer dan 3.000 amendementen ingediend. Soms blijken dit gewoon teksten te zijn die identiek zijn aan teksten die rondgestuurd worden door grote internetbedrijven. Onderzoek van "Panorama" wees uit dat Louis Michel op nummer twee stond bij het indienen van privacy-onvriendelijke amendementen. Als "Panorama" hem hiermee confronteert voor de camera, valt hij compleet uit de lucht. Michel belooft het te onderzoeken en neemt later terug contact op met "Panorama". Hij zegt dat een van zijn medewerkers zonder zijn medeweten een hele rits teksten had geamendeerd, die de bescherming van de privacy meestal verzwakken. "Had ik die amendementen gezien, ik had ze nooit laten indienen", zegt hij. Michel heeft daarna tientallen van die amendementen terug ingetrokken.

Should unauthorized use or making available of personal information s be made punishable. When personal data were obtained unlawfully, would it be logical that any use of it is unlawful. Is the criminal law a suitable instrument? The answer could be yes if we look at how we protect professional and trade secrets through criminal law. Why not extending this to misuse of personal data? In the past some member states have indeed opted for using criminal law in their national implementation bills. But is the criminal law an appropriate tool to protect against abuse of personal and business data? A closer look at this particular domain of law provides a number of considerations to answer the question. The conclusion of my intervention is that it is justifiable to criminalize. As more and less sharp boundaries between administrative and criminal enforcement dissapear, it is not objectionable to entrust criminal enforcement to administrative bodies.

Introducción: Ante el movimiento mundial de los marcos jurídicos y normativos para la protección de datos personales el artículo expone la situación actual en Brasil y analiza el Proyecto de Protección de Datos Personales. Trata de los aspectos relacionados con la privacidad, la intimidad y los datos de las personas físicas y proporciona un análisis comparativo con leyes extranjeras. Método: Investigación documental a partir de legislación nacional incluidas ahí la doctrina y la jurisprudencia y normativas internacionales. Resultados: En la actualidad, el Brasil tiene un rol disperso de leyes y todavía no hay una ley específica sobre la cuestión de la protección de datos. Menciones puntuales al tema aparecen en capítulos, artículos, párrafos y secciones de los diferentes leyes y también en la jurisprudencia. En la discusión del Proyecto Brasileño de Protección de Datos Personales brasileño se verifica la necesidad de clarificación y de refuerzo de puntos de vista sobre temas específicos, en especial los relativos a la propiedad de los datos, la seguridad y privacidad de los datos de los repositorios públicos, y la necesidad de crear una entidad reguladora autónoma. Otra preocupación está relacionada con la ausencia de sanciones penales. El proyecto de ley fue inspirado por la Directiva Europea de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal (CE 95/46) y la Ley Canadiense de Protección de Datos. Conclusiones: La proliferación de las nuevas tecnologías, especialmente la Internet, está presionando la creación de marcos legales. Considerando que el objetivo del texto del proyecto de la ley no es sólo la protección de los datos personales, sino también el establecimiento de un paradigma legal - que puede servir como un apoyo para la inversión económica y el desarrollo tecnológico - se podría contemplar la protección de los derechos económicos y las relaciones de consumo. Introdução: Considerando-se o movimento mundial relativo à segurança jurídica e aos marcos regulatórios para a proteção de dados pessoais expõe o atual panorama no Brasil e analisa o Anteprojeto Brasileiro de Proteção de Dados Pessoais. Discorre sobre distintos aspectos referentes à privacidade, à intimidade e aos dados de pessoas naturais e estabelece uma análise comparada com legislação estrangeira. Método: Levantamento de legislação, de doutrina e de jurisprudência nacional e internacional. Resultados: Atualmente o Brasil dispõe de uma proteção dispersa e não específica sobre o tema proteção de dados. Menções aparecem em capítulos, artigos, parágrafos e incisos de diferentes normas legislativas e em decisões jurisprudenciais. Ao se analisar o Anteprojeto Brasileiro de Proteção de Dados Pessoais verifica-se a necessidade de esclarecimentos e aprofundamentos em determinados artigos e incisos especialmente os que tratam da titularidade dos dados, a segurança dos repositórios de dados públicos e privados, a necessidade de criação de criação de entidade regulatória autônoma, e a ausência, no momento, de aplicação de penas em âmbito criminal. A Diretiva Europeia de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (EC 95/46) e a Lei de Proteção de Dados Canadense são as normativas que inspiraram o Anteprojeto. Conclusões: A proliferação de novas tecnologias e, principalmente, da Internet no país pressiona para a existência de marcos legais. Considerando-se que o objetivo do texto do Anteprojeto não é somente a proteção dos dados pessoais, mas também o estabelecimento de um paradigma jurídico - que possa servir de sustentáculo para investimentos econômicos e desenvolvimento tecnológico - o dispositivo também poderia contemplar as proteções de ordem econômica e das relações de consumo que envolvem o cidadão. Introduction: Given the worldwide movement on the legal and regulatory frameworks for the protection of personal data the article exposes the current scenario in Brazil and analyzes the Protection of Personal Data Protection Project. Discusses aspects related to privacy, intimacy and the data of natural persons and provides a comparative analysis with foreign law. Method: Desk research evolving national legislation, doctrine and case law, as well as, international normatives. Results: Currently, Brazil has a dispersed and not specific laws on the issue of data protection. Specific and non specific mentions appear in chapters, articles, paragraphs and sections of different pieces of legislation and jurisprudence. When analyzing the Brazilian Personal Data Protection Project there is a need for clarification and insights on specific items, especially those dealing with ownership of data, the public data repositories security and privacy, and the need for creating an autonomous regulatory entity. Another concern is related with the absence of criminal penalties. The Bill was inspired by The European Directive on the Protection of Personal Data (EC 95/46) and the Canadian Data Protection Act. Conclusions: The proliferation of new technologies, especially the Internet, is pushing for the existence of legal frameworks. Considering that the aim of the text of the Bill´s draft is not only the protection of personal data, but also the establishment of a legal paradigm, it can serve as a prop for economic investment and technological development and contemplate the protection of economic and consumer relations.

na

De Europese Commissie hoopt tegen de zomer een politiek akkoord te hebben over wetgeving voor de verregaande bescherming van persoonlijke gegevens en privacy De EU speelt de rol van gidsland

Artikel 22 van de Grondwet beschermt het prive ?leven en creëert een zogenaamde voorbehouden bevoegdheid ten voordele van de formele wetgever: elke regeling die verband houdt met de bescherming van het prive ? leven moet, in beginsel, het voorwerp uitmaken van een formele wet. Traditioneel wordt in Belgie ? aangenomen dat het verwerken van persoonsgegevens raakt aan het privacygrondrecht en bijgevolg valt onder artikel 22 van de Grondwet. Het gevolg van deze zienswijze is dat elke verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een formele wet moet worden voorzien. Dit leidt evenwel tot meerdere problemen. Vooreerst heeft een strikte toepassing van dit standpunt tot gevolg dat heel wat verwerkingen binnen de overheid, bij gebrek aan een formele wet die ze instelt, niet grondwettelijk dreigen te zijn. Bovendien draagt deze benadering het risico in zich dat het recht op gegevensbescherming aldus wordt herleid tot een onderdeel van het recht op bescherming van het privé leven, wat rechtsbeschermende risico's creëert (de vaststelling dat een verwerking geen verband houdt met het privéleven, is voldoende om geen enkele bescherming meer te voorzien). In die mate menen wij dat een andere benadering zich opdringt. Daarbij kan inspiratie gezocht worden bij het onderscheid tussen het (grond)recht op bescherming van het prive ?leven en het (grond)recht op gegevensbescherming dat zich steeds meer aftekent. In deze bijdrage willen we aangeven wat de gevolgen van dit onderscheid zijn voor de wetgever en overheden die gegevens willen verwerken.

Owing to the unique qualities of genetic data, there have been numerous criticisms of the current data protection framework's ability to protect genetic data. It has been suggested that the Directive did not recognise the sensitivity of genetic data and that it ignored a number of legitimate interests in this data (in particular interests which multiple data subjects may have and those which may remain in anonymous data). In 2012, the first results of a reform process of EU data protection law were released. These results included a draft Regulation (to replace the Directive) which introduced a new framework for the protection of genetic data. This Article considers whether the innovative approach to genetic data in the Regulation will provide a more adequate framework for the protection of genetic data. It concludes that the Regulation has rectified the lack of recognition of sensitivity, but still stutters in recognising a number of legitimate interests.

This article presents the findings of interviews with representatives from the majority of EU data protection authorities in the context of the ongoing data protection reform process. It not only identifies commonalities between the authorities to the extent it is possible to speak about an EU DPA perspective, but also identifies areas of tension and disagreement as well as future intentions. The focus of the article is upon the impact of the data protec- tion reform process on the way that these independent bodies, located in EU Member States will increasingly have to cooperate at an EU-level. Capturing these perspectives at this moment in the reform process provides not only insight into the process from a group of con- cerned stakeholders, but also insight into how these stakeholders are (re-)positioning themselves, planning, and anticipating the impacts of the reform.

The Cloud - specifically, the technical innovations and societal changes necessary to ensure the provision of trusted services in the Cloud. What models or instruments do individuals require to assert control of their sensitive personal data in these services? Innovative solutions to Cloud security against the backdrop of regulatory and value-oriented concerns are in course of rapid development. The U.K. principles concerning identity assurance may be seen as an instrumental model, covering technical, personal and regulatory dimensions. Another approach emphasized user control of personal data by means of a 'life management platform' that, by reacting both to market forces and legislation, puts privacy at the center. The core challenge of privacy remains: how to balance the need for free and open information flow with adequate and flexible protection of personal data?

As the data environment (and the technology on which it is based) becomes more complex and touches increasing spheres of life, issues relating to online security become increasingly numerous and significant. In areas of the debate revolving around online security, there is a tendency to take technology as the start point for problem definition and thus for defining an end solution. However, behind the data infrastructures, software and hardware on which solutions tend to be based, are the end users who operate the systems. In fact, it is often these individuals who are simultaneously the cause of the isolated problem and intended beneficiaries of the solution. Accordingly, a significant factor in the success of any online security innovation will be the perception and behavior of the individual using it, not only in relation to the technology itself but also in relation to the data environment in which it will be used. It is, for example, possible to develop a failsafe system which will be utterly ineffectual if the individual either cannot use it or does not understand the context in which data flows or can be used. However, understanding of how end users understand and approach technology or the online environment and conceive of the data flows, relationships, infrastructures and potential they represent is conspicuously lacking. This tends to be replaced rather by superficial assumptions as to what 'the end user' wants or needs. In fact, it is apparent that the average end user has a limited model for conception of the online environment, or the technology involved, and thus has limited comprehension as to the consequences or potential of handling data. Accordingly they also have a limited template for regulating behaviour in a security concious fashion, regardless of the technology made available. As the success of any online security enterprise depends on a combination of system efficiency and end user comprehension, a bias toward considering technological problem definitions and solutions thus fails to address the issue holistically. As online interaction becomes increasingly important, the ambit and relevance of the idea of online security expands, beyond the traditional concept of businesses or individuals protecting and controlling their own data, to a concept with relevance to the integrity of an aspect of social infrastructure. The lack of focus on the end user is thus an issue that must be addressed.

This contribution looks at the concept of privacy impact assessments (PIA) from a human rights viewpoint within the European context. It explores the possibilities and limits of PIA by identifying the useful elements in the case law of the European Court on Human Rights with regard to the right to privacy as contained in Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Introduction A team of the department of Medical Informatics Göttingen will create a collaborative infrastructure for biomedical research. The aim is to establish a grid-based environment for the exchange and management of data in the manner of long-term digital preservation [ref:1]. [for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], GMDS 2012; 57. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e.V. (GMDS)

If privacy is a cornerstone of democracy,1 then democracy is in trouble. Especially since the advent of the computer, the encroachments on privacy have proliferated. Terrorist attacks in the early 21st century have given governments all the justifications they need to bolster national security by forcing telecom companies to retain telephone records, to justify warrantless eavesdropping on our phone calls, to examine our bank records, to fuse personally identifiable information from multiple sources, to profile citizens to determine who presents a risk to the established order. Many companies have either aided and abetted governmental efforts or engaged in their own surreptitious amassing of the details of our lives. Personal data in real time has become the fuel of today's economy.

Virtually all organisations collect, use, process and share personal data from their employees, customers and/or citizens. In doing so, they may be exposing themselves to risks, from threats and vulnerabilities, of that data being breached or compromised by negligent or wayward employees, hackers, the police, intelligence agencies or third-party service providers. A recent study by the Ponemon Institute found that 70 per cent of organisations surveyed had suffered a data breach in the previous year. Privacy impact assessment is a tool, a process, a methodology to identify, assess, mitigate or avoid privacy risks and, in collaboration with stakeholders, to identify solutions. Contributors to this book - privacy commissioners, academics, consultants, practitioners, 1 industry representatives - are among the world's leading PIA experts. They share their experience and offer their insights to the reader in the policy and practice of PIA in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere. This book, the first such on privacy impact assessment, will be of interest to any organisation that collects or uses personal data and, in particular, to regulators, policy-makers, privacy professionals, including privacy, security and information officials, consultants, system architects, engineers and integrators, compliance lawyers and marketing professionals. In his Foreword, leading surveillance studies and privacy scholar Gary T. Marx says, "This state-of-the-art book describes the most comprehensive tool yet available for policy-makers to evaluate new personal data information technologies before they are introduced." This book could save your organisation many thousands or even millions of euros (or dollars) and the damage to your organisation's reputation and to the trust of employees, customers or citizens if it suffers a data breach that could have been avoided if only it had performed a privacy impact assessment before deploying a new technology, product, service or otherinitiative involving personal data.

na

na

Trabajo de Fin de Máster del Máster de Sistemas de Información Digital, curso 2010 - 2011, [ES] En el año 2004 nació una nueva forma de comunicación por Internet creada en un principio como punto de encuentro entre antiguos compañeros de clase, un lugar donde relacionarse con amigos u otras personas con gustos comunes: Facebook. A lo largo de estos años la red social ha conseguido un número de usuarios tan importante que ni sus propios creadores contaban con ello. El siguiente trabajo nos llevará a estudiar Facebook desde el punto de vista de la privacidad con el objetivo de comprender el nivel de protección de la privacidad y de los datos de carácter personal que en esta red social se recogen. La privacidad es un tema que está en auge en los últimos años debido a una incipiente preocupación de los usuarios de las redes sociales por conocer qué ocurre con sus datos. Para ello veremos cómo ha ido evolucionando la privacidad con el paso de los años, analizando la actual política de Facebook y realizando un análisis de las leyes por las que se rige tanto a nivel español como europeo, conociendo los posibles riesgos que se producen en las redes sociales. [EN] A new form of communication was born in 2004. At the beginning, it was created only as a meeting space for old classmates, a place where one could encounter friends and people with common interests: This place is Facebook. Throughout all of these years, the social network has increased its number of users to such an extent, that even its own creators would never have expected. The following research paper will lead us to study Facebook from the perspective of its privacy issues; with the main goal of understanding the privacy protection level, and the personal data that is gathered in this social network. Privacy has been a crucial topic during the last years because of the user’s growing concern to know how their personal data is treated. To study this, we will examine how has the privacy evolved throughout the years, we will analyze the current Facebook’s privacy policy, and we will also analyze the privacy laws - both in the Spanish and European contexts - in order to understand and recognize possible risks that the users of the social networks are exposed to.

NA

2008/2009 Privacy and data protection concern everyone and are issue of profound importance around the World. Privacy has been hailed as “an integral part of our humanity” the “hart of our liberty” and “the beginning of all freedoms” (Solove, 2008). Given its importance, privacy is recognized as a fundamental human right according to many International Instruments such as: the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (Article 12), International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights (Article 17) The European Convention of Human Rights of 1950 (Article 8), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 2007 (Article 8) and the Treaty of Lisbon of 2008 (Article 16 of the TFEU). However, beyond this worldwide consensus about the importance of privacy and the need for its protection, there is difficulty to conceptualize the privacy. Privacy is a contested legal concept, with several understandings and more misunderstandings. Privacy is actually shorthand for a complex bundle of issues, ranging from dignity to discrimination, and rooted in our need to control what we tell others about ourselves. The main difficulty to reach a satisfying conceptualization of the privacy is that there are some eternal privacy tensions, namely, the interests protected by privacy and data protection laws are inherently in conflict with other legitimate interests such as the freedom of speech, public security and the free flow of information. While, it is impossible to belong to a community and withhold all data, the collection and the processing of our data carry with it many risks and dangers. One such risk is that the data will be abused by those who access it, either by authorization or not. Data which was consensually provided for one purpose might be used against us in a different context. Other privacy tensions are driven by technology which gave rise to the emergence of the data protection law: the falling cost of data storage and communication makes it easier for merchants and governments to collect more data on people and thus to become more efficient to violate the privacy. The development of the Computer technology in the 1960’s and 1970’s and the enormous potential of the digital revolution made the civil libertarians worry. The nightmare of all-seeing, all-knowing “Big Brother” of George Orwell’s “1984” did not belong anymore to the realm of the fiction, but was a reality. And as the enormous potential of the digital revolution became more apparent and together with it the dangers posed to privacy, so the calls for the specific measures to protect individuals became louder. The data protection rules originally developed, at national level in the 1970s, as a response to the threats posed to the privacy by the technological developments of the 1960s and 1970s. It emerged as a new legal field, separate from the privacy law but dependent upon it. The task of the personal data law is to provide a legal framework which is capable of reconciling the needs and interests of those who make use of personal data (data controllers or data processors) with those of persons to whom these data relate (data subjects). Europe has proven to be the leader in protecting privacy and personal data of the individuals in the digital age. At the EU level, the first legal instrument in this field was Data Protection Directive, which was passed in 1995 to harmonize national data protection laws within the European Community, with the aim of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals including their privacy and personal data. After 15 years the question is whether the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC fit the objectives for which it was adopted in 1995. The European Commission considers that the Directive 95/46/EC fulfils its original objectives and therefore does not need to be amended. This thesis questions this static approach of the European Commission to the data protection regime and argues that the increasing pressure on privacy due to the development of privacy destroying technologies and the growing use of and demand for personal information by public and private sectors, requires quick legal answer and constant change of the data protection legislation. The research carried out for this thesis shows that, over time the social and regulatory environment surrounding the creation, management and the use of personal data has evolved significantly since the adoption of the Directive 95/46/EC. The Directive is showing its age and is failing to meet the new challenges posed to privacy by factors such as the huge growth of personal information on line and the growing availability and ability of the new technologies to process, use and abuse personal information in many ways. These factors have challenged the means and the methods used by Directive to protect personal data and have altered the environment for the implementation of the Directive. Thus, it is clear that the context in which the data protection Directive was created has been changed fundamentally and certain basic assumptions of the Directive have already been challenged in approach, in law and in practice. All these factors show that the Directive is out of touch to meet the technological, social and legal challenges of 21st century and therefore need to be reviewed and amended. XXI Ciclo 1975

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has suspended discussions over the release of a EU PNR processing system. Plans to introduce an intra-EU PNR processing system initiated since 2007, although strongly supported by the Commission and the Council, did not bear fruit before the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the, institutional, involvement of the Parliament. While discussions have been suspended since October 2009 and most probably a new draft proposal will be produced, it is perhaps useful to present in brief the proposal currently in place so as to highlight its shortcomings for European data protection and suggest ways individual protection may be strengthened in future drafts.

The dissertation explores the field of information policy in a historic setting in Sweden, namely the early 1970s. At the time the question of privacy in relation to databanks, data systems and personal records was intensively discussed in all public media, starting in the fall of 1970 when a large-scale population census was carried out in Sweden. The political discussions and public debate resulted in the first Swedish data protection law, Datalag (1973:289), and was counted as one of the first of this type of national legislation in the world. The focus of the empirical study lies in the analysis of the lines of arguments, political reasoning and debates concerning privacy, data protection, information and technology in documents such as official reports, committee reports, proposals and parliamentary records and publications that were produced in the policy process preceding the new legislation. The public debate itself is investigated through the editorials and reports in the daily press of the time. A combination of discourse analysis and agenda-setting theory, as it is presented and used by the political scientist John W Kingdon, constitutes the theoretical framework of the thesis. The study is introduced with a discussion concerning discourse and language use in politics, and here Norman Faircloughs CDA, Critical Discourse Analysis, has been the main inspiration. Kingdon’s agendasetting model contributes with an interesting theoretical perspective on the social and political context of the discourses under study. The research questions also draw upon library and information science and theoretical work within the area of information policy, with issues concerning notions of information and technology, for example information as a public good versus private good in the market, and information as a free or restricted/protected resource. The main findings of the study imply that the political discussion and debate on databanks and privacy were heavily influenced by a public-oriented discourse focusing mainly on governmental authorities’ own use of information systems holding personal data. The new legislation, datalag (1973:289) could also be seen as a tool that sanctions governmental authorities’ extensive use and dependence on new data technologies and automatic data-processing in building up the welfare state and the growing public sector. The discourse was also based on a mixed notion of the new technology, perceiving data technology mainly as the “big machine” which contains a vast amount of personal information. This, at a time when the technology itself was transforming rapidly from bulky machines to personal computers. The practical effects of this discourse could be seen, for example, in the serious underestimation of the overall use of automatic data-processing in society as a whole, the use of which the legislation was set to regulate. When it comes to agenda-setting the public debate together with the activities of different actors in parliament had a major influence on the outcome of the work of the commission of inquiry that was set up. The public debate affected how the problem area of databanks and privacy was considered, but the commission formulated the actual legislation independently, without interference or adjustments by the social democratic government. Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av samhällsvetenskapliga fakulteten vid Göteborgs universitet för vinnande av doktorsexamen framläggs till offentlig granskning kl. 13.15 fredagen den11 september 2009 i hörsalen C204, Högskolan i Borås, Allégatan 1 Institutionen Biblioteks- och Informationsvetenskap/Bibliotekshögskolan, Högskolan i Borås och Göteborgs universitet

This paper describes Spanish regulation of agencies and credit reference files, especially RAI and ASNEF. How to access information, rectify or destroy wrong information, in order to use law to protect citizen’s rights.

This volume arises from the tenth annual International Conference on Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection (CPDP 2017) held in Brussels in January 2017, bringing together papers that offer conceptual analyses, highlight issues, propose solutions, and discuss practices regarding privacy and data protection. Topics explored include: Directive 95/46/EU and the GDPR moving from a market framing to a 'treaty-based' games frame; the GDPR requirements regarding machine learning; the need for transparency in automated decision-making systems to warrant against wrong decisions and protecting privacy; the risk-revolution in EU data protection law; data security challenges of Industry 4.0 and (new) types of data introduced in the GDPR; privacy design implications of conversational agents; and reasonable expectations of data protection in Intelligent Orthoses. Data Protection and Privacy was written while the implications of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 were sinking in. It discusses open issues and daring and prospective approaches. This book will serve as an insightful resource for readers with an interest in computers, privacy, and data protection.

To apprehend the future of privacy I have opted for a controlled exploration of the issue, mainly taking the form of delamination: an exploration or assessment of privacy in a broad sense is not the object of this reflection. The focus is on technology-related privacy. Is the future of (some aspects of privacy) dependent on the future of technology? What is then the future of technology? What technology brings the future and what future brings technology? We know technology changes rapidly and we, law and technology lawyers or privacy lawyers, update ourselves constantly, including on the various technology-related concepts that come to us from other industries. One author sees a hype cycle at work with machine learning and blockchain currently peaking in the ‘must understand’-lists of technology and big data having lost already all its appeal

Zonder goede checks and balances mogen we niet aanvaarden dat instanties metadata over ons bijhouden.

ispartof: Law. The Journal of the Higher School of Economics pages:53-63 status: published

10.1. Inleiding 298 10.2. Bestuurlijke aanpak van criminaliteit 302 10.2.1. Inleiding 302 10.2.2 Gewapend bestuur als instrument tegen misbruik van ??overheidsfaciliteiten 10.2.3. Gewapend bestuur in Nederland 10.2.4. Introductie van gewapend bestuur in België 10.2.5. Afbakening centrale vraag van het onderzoek 10.2.6. Focusgroep 10.2.7. Uitkomsten van de focusgroep 10.2.8. Conclusie 10.3. Bestuurlijke handhaving 10.3.1. Inleiding 10.3.2. Algemene en bijzondere bestuurlijke politie 10.3.4. Bijzondere bestuurlijke politie 335 10.3.4.1. Nachtwinkels 335 10.3.4.2. Drankinrichtingen 339 10.3.4.3. Drugswet 340 10.3.5. Bijzondere regelingen 344 10.3.5.1. Kansspelinrichtingen 344 10.3.5.2. Overheidsopdrachten 345 10.3.6. Conclusie 346 10.4. Wet op het politieambt en de lokale overheid 347 10.4.1. Inleiding 347 10.4.2. Is het lokaal bestuur een politieoverheid in de zin van de WPA? 348 10.4.3. Bestuurlijke en gerechtelijke politie 354 10.4.4. Is het besluit van het bestuur een politiemaatregel? 358 10.4.5. Het gezag van de burgemeester in het kader van bestuurlijke politie 361 10.4.6. Het beheer van politionele informatie 364 10.4.7. De algemene nationale gegevensbank (artikel 44/4) en omzendbrief MFO 3 367 10.4.8. Concreet belang en bestuurlijk belang 369 10.4.9. Wie heeft toegang tot de ANG? 370 10.4.10. Arrondissementele informatiekruispunten (AIK, art. 93 en 105bis WGP) 373 10.4.11. Integrated System for the Local Police (ISLP) 375 10.4.12. Controleorgaan van het politionele informatiebeheer 10.4.13. Conclusie

The objective of this report is to comprehensively inventory and analyse privacy and related certification schemes in the European Union and, where relevant, at the international level. The report will provide insights into the importance of privacy seal schemes and present information on the operational aspects of these schemes. The report will also help understand the privacy and data protection elements of the analysed schemes and provide and initial analysis of their shortcomings. The report specifically aims to understand whether (if at all) the analysed schemes address the requirements proposed under the GDPR. It will highlight the main convergences and differences between the schemes, who benefits from such schemes and what the impact of such schemes is.