Frederik Borgesius
Institute for Information Law (IViR)

Korte Spinhuissteeg 3
1012 CG Amsterdam
The Netherlands

kamer B1.17
tel.: + 31 20 - 525 39 21
fax: +31 20 - 525 30 33

Curriculum Vitae

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. 9-22.


Behavioral Targeting: A European Legal Perspective, IEEE Security & Privacy, 2013-1, p. 82-85.

Behavioral 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. 54-58.

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.


(with 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, 2012.

This 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.



Updated 23.09.2014