Data protection and the internet: irreconcilable opposites? The EU Data Protection Reform Package and CJEU case law

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Wiebe
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Eu

Digital Economy

2019 ◽  
pp. 131-170
Author(s):  
Anu Bradford
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
The World ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 5 focuses on two areas of regulation that have been central to the EU’s efforts to regulate the digital economy: data protection and the regulation of hate speech online. The chapter first reviews the EU legislation governing data protection and explains the economic and political drivers behind it. It then discusses some examples of both the de facto and de jure Brussels Effect on data protection. Then, the focus turns to online hate speech, again reviewing the regulation, the underlying economic and political motivations, as well as examples of how the EU has drawn the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech in the internet era—not just in Europe but around the world.

ECJ ruling further dims EU-US data protection outlook

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Data Storage ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Data Flows ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

Significance The ECJ ruling could add to potential disruptions to transatlantic commercial data flows arising from the EU's developing data protection regime that a study for the US Chamber of Commerce valued at 0.8-1.3% of EU GDP. The ruling weakens the United States in negotiations over the new EU regime, as well as over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Impacts The ruling may bolster development of EU-based cloud facilities as EU users seek to avoid the risks of US-based data storage. This could reduce US firms' estimated 76% share of the EU cloud market. It would also lead to further fragmentation of the internet as a global resource.

scholarly journals The End of Privacy? Paradoxes and Dilemmas of Internet Use and Online Surveillance

MaRBLe ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Gaumet
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Privacy Measures ◽  
The Eu

With the Internet growing in importance in our daily lives, concerns about privacy and data protection have emerged. While people worry about where they data may end up, they continue making themselves openly transparent by sharing information about themselves and their lives online. This study aims to understand the paradoxes between privacy considerations – mainly, the wish to keep individual data private and secure – and the actions that people undertake in reality. More specifically, it focuses on three paradoxes and dilemmas of privacy: age, perceived usefulness, and rewards. These will be studied by analyzing the results of a survey, in which respondents from the EU, North America and East Asia were asked about their online habits and their opinions on various security issues and privacy measures. The analysis ultimately aims to further the understanding of privacy paradoxes, and what hinders people from protecting their data sufficiently.

Oblivion Is Full of Memory

2021 ◽  
pp. 441-465
Author(s):  
Anabelen Casares Marcos
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The Internet ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to informational self-determination has raised bitter debate over the last decade as to the opportunity and possible scope of the right to demand withdrawal from the internet of personal information which, while true, might represent a detriment that there is no legal duty to put up with. The leading case in this topic is that of Mario Costeja, Judgment of the EU Court of Justice, May 13, 2014. The interest of recent European jurisprudence lies not so much in the recognition of such a right but in the appreciation of certain limits to its implementation, assisting data protection authorities in balancing the rights at stake in each case. Reflection on the current status of the issue considers rights and duties imposed in the matter by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, of 27 April, known as the new General Data Protection Regulation.

Data Protection in the Clouds

2019 ◽  
pp. 146-164
Author(s):  
Christopher Millard
Keyword(s):  
Cloud Computing ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
Computing Environments ◽  
The Eu

This chapter brings a legal perspective to bear on the topic of data protection on the contemporary Internet in which personal information is increasingly stored and processed in, and accessed from, “the cloud.” The reliance of ever more apps, websites, and services on cloud providers contrasts with earlier days of the Internet in which much more data was stored locally on personal computers. At a time when there is ever more use of cloud computing, this chapter illuminates the complexities over what information in cloud computing environments is protected as personal data, and who is responsible. Will data protection laws, such as those in the EU, protect us, or are there alternative approaches to providing effective protection for personal data in clouds? This chapter airs the question of whether a greater focus should be placed on localizing personal data, as advocated by the Internet pioneer, Tim Berners-Lee.

scholarly journals The Essence of the Fundamental Rights to Privacy and Data Protection: Finding the Way Through the Maze of the CJEU’s Constitutional Reasoning

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 864-883
Author(s):  
Maja Brkan
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Considerable Impact ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn the constitutional shaping of the concept of essence of fundamental rights, the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU” or “the Court”) in the field of privacy and data protection plays a crucial role. The Court’s interpretation of this notion had a considerable impact not only jon perception of the essence in other fields of law, but also on the constitutional doctrine more generally. This Article focuses on specificities of the notion of essence of fundamental rights to privacy and the protection of personal data from Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. After a general analysis, situating this notion into the framework of multi-level protection of fundamental rights in Europe, the Article addresses further interpretative challenges relating to the essence in the Court’s case law. At the core of the analysis are the Schrems and Digital Rights Ireland cases, where the CJEU developed, for the first time, the modalities of the breach of essence of fundamental rights to privacy and data protection and laid down constitutional foundations for interpretation of this notion. Further jurisprudence, including the Tele2 Sverige and Opinion 1/15 cases, is analyzed as an example of fine-tuning of the CJEU’s approach towards the normative understanding of this concept. Against this backdrop, the Article elaborates on the importance of insights in the fields of privacy and data protection for the general constitutional understanding of the concept of essence and proposes a generalized method for determination of infringement of essence in fundamental rights jurisprudence.

scholarly journals Online Publication of Court Decisions in Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc van Opijnen ◽  
Ginevra Peruginelli ◽  
Eleni Kefali ◽  
Monica Palmirani
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Online Publication ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Frameworks

AbstractAlthough nowadays most courts publish decisions on the internet, substantial differences exist between European countries regarding such publication. These differences not only pertain to the extent with which judgments are published and anonymised, but also to their metadata, searchability and reusability. This article, written by Marc van Opijnen, Ginevra Peruginelli, Eleni Kefali and Monica Palmirani, contains a synthesis of a comprehensive comparative study on the publication of court decisions within all Member States of the European Union. Specific attention is paid on the legal and policy frameworks governing case law publication, actual practices, data protection issues, Open Data policies as well as the state of play regarding the implementation of the European Case Law Identifier.

scholarly journals Can the Internet Forget? – Rhe Eight to be Forgotten in the EU Law and its Actual Impact on the Internet. Comparison of the Approaches Towards the Notion and Assessment of its Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-101
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gebuza
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Actual Impact ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe main aim of the article is to provide analysis on the notion of the right to be forgotten developed by the CJEU in the ruling Google v. AEPD & Gonzalez and by the General Data Protection Regulation within the context of the processing of personal data on the Internet. The analysis provides the comparison of approach towards the notion between European and American jurisprudence and doctrine, in order to demonstrate the scale of difficulty in applying the concept in practice.

scholarly journals Policing Faces: The Present and Future of Intelligent Facial Surveillance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachlan Urquhart ◽  
Diana Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Design Requirements ◽  
The Eu

In this paper, we discuss present and future uses of intelligent facial surveillance (IFS) in law enforcement. We do this through an empirical and legally focused case study of live automated facial recognition (LFR) in British policing. In Part I we analyse insights from 26 frontline police officers on LFR, exploring their concerns and scepticism about the technology. We contextualise this discussion on LFR deployment by examining current UK case law which raises concerns around human rights, data protection and anti-discrimination laws. In Part II, we turn our attention to future uses of IFS, examining frontline officer optimism around LFR when integrated with other surveillance technologies. We also discuss the emergence of new forms of IFS, namely emotional AI (EAI) technologies in law enforcement.We discuss how the law may impact this optimism and integration, by analysing the new EU Proposed AI Regulation (AIR). This law makes LFR a prohibited form of AI in the EU, whilst EAI use by law enforcement will be regulated as a high risk AI system (HRAIS), and thus subject to new rules and design requirements. Part III draws together our reflections on the legal issues and officer perspectives into a series of 10 lessons. These consolidate a set of practical issues weobserve in deploying LFR and EAI. It highlights points that need attention for any future law enforcement use of IFS.

Revisiting the Basics of EU Data Protection Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-33
Author(s):  
Dimosthenis Lentzis
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Data Protection Directive ◽  
General Data ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Eu

It is often said that the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has a much broader material and territorial scope than the EU Data Protection Directive it has recently replaced. This chapter tries to find out if (and, if so, to what extent) this assumption is correct. To this end, it analyzes, in the light of the existing case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, the relevant provisions of the GDPR, namely Articles 2 and 3. It comes out that the GDPR has a slightly different (but not necessarily broader) material scope and a broader (but not as broad as one would expect) territorial scope than the old EU Data Protection Directive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document