for Information Law (IViR)
Korte Spinhuissteeg 3
1012 CG Amsterdam
+ 31 20 - 525 39 21
+31 20 - 525 30 33
Frederik is a PhD
candidate, researching behavioural targeting and
European data protection regulation. Building on
insights from behavioural economics, his research
explores how privacy could be protected more effectively
in the context of behavioural targeting, without unduly
restricting individual autonomy.
Before joining IViR he worked in the music industry for
many years (as a producer, DJ, publisher and label owner)
and dealt with copyright on a daily basis. While running
his own company he studied law at the Open University
and earned his Bachelor's degree in 2008. During his
research Master’s at the IViR he worked part-time at
SOLV attorneys, a law firm dedicated to technology,
media and communications. Frederik has also studied six
months at Hong Kong University.
Consent to Behavioural Targeting in European Law - What
are the Policy Implications of Insights from Behavioural
Economics?, Conference paper for Privacy Law
Scholars Conference (PLSC), 6-7 June 2013, Berkeley,
United States. (Draft paper, comments are welcome).
Segmentação Comportamental, Do Not Track e o
desenvolvimento jurídico europeu e holandês
(Behavioral Targeting, Do Not Track, and European and
Dutch Legal Developments), poliTICs, 2013-14, p.
Behavioral Targeting: A European Legal Perspective,
Security & Privacy, 2013-1, p. 82-85.
targeting, or online profiling, is a hotly debated
topic. Much of the collection of personal
information on the Internet is related to behavioral
targeting, although research suggests that most
people don't want to receive behaviorally targeted
advertising. The World Wide Web Consortium is
discussing a Do Not Track standard, and regulators
worldwide are struggling to come up with answers.
This article discusses European law and recent
policy developments on behavioral targeting.
(with S. Kulk)
Filtering for Copyright Enforcement in Europe after the
Sabam cases, draft paper.
Article also published in
European Intellectual Property Review, 2012-11, p.
Sabam, a Belgian collective rights
management organisation, wanted an internet access
provider and a social network site to install a
filter system to enforce copyrights. In two recent
judgments, the Court of Justice of the European
Union decided that the social network site and the
internet access provider cannot be required to
install the filter system that Sabam asked for. Are
these judgments good news for fundamental rights?
This article argues that little is won for privacy
and freedom of information.
Behavioral Targeting: Legal Developments in Europe and
the Netherlands, Position paper for the
W3C Do Not
Track Workshop, November 2012.
B. van der Sloot),
Google's Dead End, or: on Street View and the Right to
Data Protection: An analysis of Google Street View's
compatibility with EU data protection law, Computer
Law Review International, 2012-4, p. 103-109.
May a company
photograph the daily lives of people all over the
world, store those photos, and publish them on the
internet? This article assesses which obligations
Google has to fulfil in order to respect the
European data protection rules. The focus lies on
three questions. First, which data processed for the
Street View service are personal data? Second, does
Google have a legitimate ground for processing
personal data? Third, does Google comply with its
transparency obligations and does it respect the
rights of the data subjects, specifically their
right to information?
Speech at the European Parliament:
Interparliamentary Committee meeting: The reform of the
EU Data Protection framework - Building trust in a
digital and global world, 10 October 2012.
(with B. van der Sloot)
Google and Personal Data Protection, Working Paper,
chapter discusses the interplay between the European
personal data protection regime and two specific Google
services, Interest Based Advertising and Google Street
View. The chapter assesses first the applicability of
the Data Protection Directive, then jurisdictional
issues, the principles relating to data quality, whether
there is a legitimate purpose for data processing, and
lastly the transparency principle in connection with the
rights of the data subject. The conclusion is that not
all aspects of the services are easy to reconcile with
the Directive's requirements.