Search

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This report contains a review of Joint Recommendations submitted by Member States Regional Groups for the implementation of the Landing Obligation in 2024 and beyond. European Commission Published Refereed

This article considers the possibility of an economic valorisation of personal data without the consent of data subjects but rather, alternative legal bases such as article 6(1)(b) of the GDPR (performance of a contract), or article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest of the controller). For article 6(1)(b), the concept of exchange-commerce and RTM is contemplated, where consideration is paid by the data subject, allowing (like a license) the temporary use of some personal data for profiling and/or marketing purposes by the controller. While several remuneration models can exist, the main focus of jurists should be on making these models safe and balanced for data subjects, rather than prohibiting them. Moreover, when considering the legitimate interest of the controller, rather than it being recognized only as a 'quasi' right if harmless and indifferent to the rights of data subjects, this legal base can implement the "bridge of crossing and balancing" between privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms. Consequently, instead of anchoring to the idealization of consent as the only legal basis suitable for legitimizing the commercial exploitation of personal data, the focus should be on the accountability of the controllers of the processing as well as safeguarding data-driven fundamental rights and freedoms, without suffocating, but indeed encouraging economic initiative and innovation.

Il Metaverso materializzerà intorno a noi un mondo nuovo, vivificato da un continuo fluire di informazioni e immagini, tra cui anche dati personali comehuman characteristics e datiinferiti. Da parte nostra, noi continueremo a riflettere e a porci molte domande sulla sua attuazione, sul suo funzionamento e sul ruolo che rivestirà nel futuro della nostra quotidianità, in particolare dal punto di vista del possibile impatto sui nostri diritti e libertà. Nello specifico, sotto il profilo della protezione dei dati personali, nelle pagine che precedono ci siamo già chiesti come potranno trovare applicazione le categorie concettuali normativamente previste dal GDPR e in che modo potranno trovare attuazione tutti i principi e le tutele ivi stabiliti. Può osservarsi ora come, probabilmente, tali questioni andranno inquadrate e risolte, oltre e più che in termini di regolazione e legal enforcement, anche attraverso il ricorso alla cd. industry standardization e, cioè, lasciando che il mercato e le sue dinamiche concorrenziali lascino affiorare regole e standard tecnologici e di condotta adeguati alle novità e alle peculiarità delle dinamiche del Metaverso. Del resto, il Metaverso non rappresenterà una piattaforma social appartenenti ad un brand soltanto come quelle cui siamo oggi abituati ma configurerà un nuovo ambiente complesso nel quale saranno chiamate a operare e a confrontarsi tante piattaforme, piccole, medie e grandi. In tal senso, le più adeguate garanzie e forme di tutela per i diritti e le libertà degli interessati potranno nascere e svilupparsi anche in seno al mercato e per effetto di sinergie competitive che, anche incorrendo in inevitabili prove ed errori, plasmeranno policies e regolazioni negoziali destinate via via a sedimentarsi nella generale prassi applicativa. Fermo restando che sono molte ancora le domande prive di una risposta, possiamo tuttavia confermare con entusiasmo che sono moltissime anche le aspettative per il parallelo aumento dei diritti e delle opportunità a beneficio di tutti noi. Dobbiamo pertanto guardare al futuro del Metaverso con positività, oltre che con razionale lucidità.

As we witness the Metaverse slowly and gradually unfolding before us as a new virtual world, bringing to life a continuous flow of information and images, including personal data such as human characteristics and inferred data, we will keep reflecting and asking many questions regarding its implementation, functioning and role in our everyday life, particularly from the perspective of the possible impact to our rights and freedoms. With regard to the protection of personal data, we have attempted to describe some of the key questions surrounding the applicability of certain conceptual categories provided for by the GDPR, and how some of its principles and safeguards could be implemented. While no one disputes the fact that the Metaverse will need to operate with information and personal data, we intuitively regard the data required for the Metaverse as being capable of revealing the most intrinsic, innate and distinctive features relating to human characteristics. The processing of these human characteristics, meaning physical, physiological and behavioural characteristics like human actions, gestures, movements and jolts, which can be involuntary and instinctive, will likely lead to the identification of an individual. Furthermore, human characteristics represent the inexhaustible fuel which the Metaverse will draw on to function effectively and thus vibrate with vitality. As far as human characteristics are concerned, while they are substantially the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, they are not, by far, systematically processed by specific technical means like measurements that allow or confirm the unique identification, i.e. for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person. In the logic of the GDPR, uniquely identifying means tracing with certainty a subject’s identity, distinguishing it from the mass of individuals by virtue of characteristics that have been handled, to unequivocally confirm that the said subject really is he or she. The univocal identification occurs when it is determined with absolute certainty that the subject does not identify with any other human being. Thus, the principle is that human characteristics are not and should not be defined and classified as biometric data and/or special categories of data as per the meaning of the GDPR. While human characteristics can reflect our uniqueness, they are not necessarily used in order to uniquely confirm it. In addition to the regulatory and legal analysis and solution-building, we also mention the merit in fostering the development of industry standards by letting the market and its competitive dynamics produce the rules, technological practices and codes of conduct that are necessary and appropriate to modulate the novel and peculiar dynamics of the Metaverse. This approach will be particularly relevant since the Metaverse will not be the product of one single social platform or major tech brand, but will configure a new complex ecosystem of a variety of small, medium and large players from different sectors, which will be called to operate and collaborate with each other. To that extent, the most adequate guarantees and forms of protection for the rights and freedoms of the interested parties may well indeed develop from within the market, as a result of its competitive synergies that will shape, even perhaps through some necessary trial and error, the key policies destined to gradually settle into the general practice. &nbsp

Mentre il modello statico ex ante, come quello ideato da Apple con le Privacy Nutrition Labels, resta ancorato a dinamiche tradizionali di somministrazione delle informazioni (sebbene tradotte in forma creativa e innovativa) e rischia di comportare anche effetti collaterali sulla libera iniziativa economica e sulla libertà di espressione degli sviluppatori, l’approccio dinamico ex post che contraddistingue le politiche di altri operatori sembra rappresentare più nitidamente il futuro della privacy. La nostra proposta è quella di orientare le potenzialità dell’utilizzo di algoritmi, a maggior ragione se sviluppati in forma intelligente, verso scopi diversi rispetto a quelli tipicamente commerciali o statistici, rendendo possibile una profilazione personalizzata degli interessati pro-privacy, una sorta di behavioural targeting inteso a favorire una maggiore omogeneità dell’esperienza di navigazione dei diversi luoghi virtuali frequentati dagli internauti. Così, per esempio, se il sito x riscontra un’opposizione al trattamento, questa viene riproposta anche nel sito y allo scopo di garantire che l’esperienza risulti effettivamente e organicamente aderente alle preferenze privacy espresse dall’interessato. Potremmo definire questo genere di iniziative come Privacy Dynamic Targeting: app e website “seguono” o, meglio, “accompagnano” dinamicamente l’interessato, ne studiano il comportamento e ne registrano le scelte (anche) con lo scopo di assicurare uniformemente, in ciascuno degli scenari digitali frequentati, la sua autodeterminazione informativa. L’effetto che ne risulterebbe in tali casi sarebbe quello di una personalizzazione sistematica e coerente dell’esperienza informativa-privacy a favore degli interessati. Il Privacy Dynamic Targeting, sfruttando gli algoritmi come antidoto agli algoritmi, darebbe luogo a un trattamento di dati personali che ben potrebbe rinvenire il suo fondamento nell’interesse legittimo del titolare e degli stessi terzi interessati ai sensi dell’art. 6, par. 1, lett. f) del GDPR. La prevalenza, nel caso di specie, dell’interesse legittimo rispetto agli altri diritti e alle altre libertà degli interessati risulterebbe molto probabilmente convincente e giustificato, considerando che il trattamento sarebbe direttamente funzionale ad agevolare, in un’ottica di effettività e accountability, l’osservanza dell’art. 12 del GDPR in riferimento all’esercizio dei diritti degli interessati. Abbandonando l’idea dell’informativa come complesso unitario, statico e sintetizzante delle informazioni relative al trattamento dei dati personali (che possiamo riscontrare nelle Privacy Nutrition Labels, o, per continuare con la metafora, in un menu statico che descriva ingredienti e piatti in astratto), nel modello dinamico ex post le informazioni vengono disaggregate e rilasciate agli interessati in puntuale corrispondenza dei luoghi digitali ove il trattamento effettivamente si verifica (un po’ come accadrebbe, proseguendo nella metafora alimentare, a dei commensali in un ristorante innanzi ad un cameriere che servisse loro il piatto, spiegando le caratteristiche delle pietanze in concreto e dal vivo). Nelle prospettive future, il modello dinamico ex post potrebbe ulteriormente evolversi e svilupparsi almeno in due direzioni: per un verso, impiegando gli algoritmi non già al servizio di finalità tipicamente commerciali o statistiche ma allo scopo di profilare l’interessato sulla base delle preferenze privacy espresse nei diversi luoghi digitali frequentati e garantire così l’uniformità della sua autodeterminazione informativa – è il Privacy Dynamic Targeting cui si faceva cenno prima; per altro verso, realizzando un’ibridazione delle funzioni informative con quelle di riscontro delle richieste di esercizio dei diritti di cui agli artt. 15-22 del GDPR, rendendo così la privacy, finalmente, viva e interattiva.

While the static ex-ante model, like the one developed by Apple with the Privacy Nutrition Labels, is still anchored to traditional information administration criteria (even if in innovative and creative ways) and risks collateral effects on the free economic initiative and freedom of expression of developers, the dynamic ex-post model adopted by other operators seems to offer a clearer idea of the future of privacy. The algorithms in this sense could be the antidote to themselves. Our proposal is to direct the potential of the use of algorithms, if developed in an intelligent way, toward different purposes with respect to those typically commercial or statistical, making the personalised profiling of data subjects more pro-privacy through a sort of behavioural targeting intended to favour greater uniformity in the experience of the various virtual spaces visited by browsers. This way, for example, if site x registers an objection to processing, this objection is also proposed in site y so as to ensure that the experience effectively and organically adheres to the privacy preferences expressed by the data subject. We could define this kind of initiative as Privacy Dynamic Targeting: Apps and websites dynamically “follow” or, better, “accompany” data subjects, analysing their behaviour and recording their preferences (also) with the purpose of uniformly ensuring their informational self-determination in each of the digital scenarios they encounter. The effect in these cases would be that of systematically and coherently personalising the privacy-information experience to the advantage of the data subjects. By exploiting algorithms as an antidote to algorithms, Privacy Dynamic Targeting would give rise to a type of personal data processing that could well find its roots in the legitimate interest of the controller and interested third parties as per article 6 (1)(f) of the GDPR. By abandoning the concept of the privacy information notice as a singular, static summary of information on the processing of personal data (as we find in nutrition labels, or, continuing the metaphor, in a static menu abstractly describing ingredients and dishes), the dynamic ex-post model disaggregates the information and releases it precisely in the digital spaces where the processing effectively takes place (as would be the case, continuing the nutritional metaphor, of a waiter describing the qualities and characteristics of the dishes as they’re being served, in real time). In the future, the dynamic ex-post model could evolve further and develop in at least two directions. One could involve the use of algorithms not already serving typically commercial or statistical purposes, for profiling data subjects according to the privacy preferences expressed in the various digital spaces they visit, thereby ensuring uniformity in their digital self-determination. This corresponds to the Privacy Dynamic Targeting. The other could involve combining the information functions with the functions for the exercise of the rights provided for under articles 15-22 of the GDPR, which could finally turn the concept of privacy into something live and interactive.

The race to create local cloud solutions has become a constant in the digital development programs of member States. Italy is promoting the establishment of the so-called "national cloud", and Germany and France have been working for some time on the Gaia-X project. At European level, the development of cloud computing is taking a strategic role, at least for the immediate future. The declared objective is to free us from solutions that today are almost entirely dependent on infrastructures made available by international providers. Contributing to the debate - more by superimposition than composition - there are broadly geopolitical motivations, aspirations to global technological predominance and concerns associated with personal data protection for third party interference due to the extraterritorial application of foreign legislation. The recent "Schrems II" ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and previously, but with less impact in the broader public, the results of the joint EDPB (European Data Protection Board)-EDPS (European Data Protection Supervisor) study on the United States' Cloud Act, have forced the question of the international acquisition of personal data flows (and non-personal, we may add) and the associated assurances. This paper intends to offer an analysis of the subject, aimed above all at unravelling the multiple levels of the questions raised, which touch not only on legal but on political matters and give an initial, reasoned census of the various bodies of applicable law. Above and beyond hard-hitting declarations, we need to determine to what point the independence of a local European cloud is effectively possible or desirable compared to non-EU providers and, in more concrete terms, to what point an autonomous solution is economically and technically practicable in terms of services that are essential for the States, and that enable the exercise of other fundamental rights and freedoms, for individuals, and therefore must not be susceptible to impairment or interruption. We also have to understand to what point it would be opportune in terms of security, even if this, at first glance, may seem counter-intuitive. In this sense, at least in the overall assessment, we have to consider the high levels of service stability and the existence of high-tech measures to contrast cybercrime that the major international providers can ensure, levels it would be inadvisable to forgo if it were possible to keep the benefits, thereby significantly reducing the associated risks. Indeed, the protection of processed data from external interference must also be measured on a different, but nonetheless significant, level to that of any potential "extraterritorial" threat, represented by criminal activity and security breaches. Another factor that must be considered is the availability of solutions, already entirely actual and "in the hands" of users, which offer immediate protection, such as encryption or the segregation of strategic data sets. In other words, if there are possible measures that significantly reduce the extraterritorial risk and that retain the advantages in terms of contrasting cybercrime, these must be duly included in the overall assessment. Our analysis will also shed light on inconsistencies in terms of data protection within the European Union, and misalignments between national efforts toward localization and the principle of the free circulation of data. In short, we intend to offer a more articulate, less obvious outline of the subjects we are dealing with, which cannot be reduced (if not at the cost of excessive simplification) to the simple contraposition of E.U. versus non-EU, but which reveal lateral synergies and joint misalignments on fronts apparently united; rather, it would be better to think in terms of the creation of a shared ecosystem that draws the most significant advantage from the solutions available today and acknowledges the need to adopt concrete forms of protection. This does not in any way mean evading the serious, but not immediately solvable extraterritorial questions, but preferably using them, if anything, as a mechanism for obtaining a critical reconsideration of the shortcomings and lack of legal harmonization that emerge even within the European Union. Nor does it mean embarking on a path toward domestic solutions that offer little, or at least less protection than those currently available, but instead maintaining high levels of protection against unlawful activity through more advanced technological solutions, and at the same time identifying legal instruments which assure greater national control of the infrastructures and data, and reduce risk to a legally acceptable level.

Il progetto PHAROS4MPAs esplora i modi in cui le AMP mediterranee sono influenzate dalle attività antropiche nella crescente Blue Economy e fornisce una serie di raccomandazioni pratiche su come gli impatti ambientali dei settori economici chiave possano essere prevenuti o ridotti. La corretta diffusione delle raccomandazioni pratiche capitalizzate del progetto PHAROS4MPAs mira a migliorare l'efficacia della gestione delle AMP ed a rendere più efficace la conservazione degli ecosistemi marini in tutto il Mediterraneo. Questo rapporto nasce con l'obiettivo di permettere una capillare diffusione dei risultati principali del progetto PHAROS4MPAS tra gli amministratori, i gestori di Aree Protette ed i portatori di interesse italiani e di promuovere perciò il recepimento e l’implementazione sul territorio nazionale delle raccomandazioni prodotte. Il Rapporto integra al suo interno i Rapporti di sintesi (Policy Briefs) prodotti dal Progetto, i cui rispettivi autori sono indicati nei Rapporti originali in lingua inglese reperibili al seguente link: https://pharos4mpas.interreg-med.eu/what-we-achieve/deliverables-database/ L’attività descritta nella presente pubblicazione è stata finanziata dal Progetto Interreg MED PHAROS4MPAs https://pharos4mpas.interreg-med.eu/ Coordinamento: Giulio Farella (CNR-ISMAR) Autori: Giulio Farella, Alessandro Mulazzani, Andrea Barbanti (CNR-ISMAR) Luca Bolognini, Fabio Grati (CNR-IRBIM) Cartografia e mappe: Alessandro Mulazzani (CNR-ISMAR) Traduzione: Silvia Modena Composizione grafica: Ramona Gratti Modalità di citazione suggerita: PHAROS4MPAs Project (2019). Promuovere la coesistenza fra Aree Marine Protette e Usi del Mare in Italia - Raccomandazioni dal progetto Interreg MED-PHAROS4MPAs. Doi: 10.5281/ zenodo.3483186 ©PHAROS4MPAs. All rights reserved. More information on https://pharos4mpas.interreg-med.eu, Project website https://pharos4mpas.interreg-med.eu

Marine recreational fishers accumulate a vast amount of Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) during their fishing activity that can be of paramount importance for monitoring how climate change affects the structure of biological communities. Here, we accessed the LEK of recreational anglers and recreational spearfishers to investigate the increase in the abundance of five northward expanding indigenous thermophilic fish species in two subregions of the Mediterranean Sea: the Adriatic/Ionian Seas and the Tyrrhenian/Ligurian Seas. We used an online survey administered through Twitter and Facebook between 2017 and 2018 to both Italian and Croatian recreational fishers. A total of 794 respondents completed the questionnaire (386 from the Adriatic/Ionian subregion and 408 from the Tyrrhenian/Ligurian one). Overall, the species perceived as most increasing in abundance were Pomatomus saltatrix (71% of replies) followed by Sphyraena viridensis (58%). The rest of species (Coryphaena hippurus, Balistes capriscus and Sparisoma cretense) ranged between 17% and 25%. We showed that recreational fishers have a stable system of beliefs about meridionalization, which is perceived homogeneously between recreational anglers and spearfishers. Moreover, our results indicate that latitude is negatively correlated with meridionalization in the Adriatic/Ionian, but not in the Thyrrenian/Ligurian Seas, suggesting that meridionalization of the Adriatic/Ionian Seas could be a process that is temporally lagged with respect to the Tyrrhenian/Ligurian Seas. Our study demonstrate that LEK of specific target groups such as recreational fishers can be easily accessed on large geographical scale and it can be useful to identify those fish species who are regarded as indicators of climate change.