Blogpost part of a series on data portability and interoperability.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}

De vrijheid van meningsuiting heeft meer gewicht bij uitlatingen die deel uitmaken van het publiek debat. Dat is een bekend uitgangspunt dat ook door het EHRM gehanteerd wordt. Daarmee is de vraag hoe deze categorie met name beschermde uitlatingen wordt afgebakend nog niet beantwoord. Deze bijdrage tracht op grond van een analyse van de jurisprudentie van het EHRM antwoord op deze vraag te geven. Er wordt in het bijzonder ook onderzocht of de benadering van het Hof consistent is.<./p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Alle opwinding over de nieuwe Europese privacyregels komt volgens Nico van Eijk neer op stemmingmakerij. Op 25 mei ziet hij bar weinig veranderen.

},
note = {<p>Opinie in Het Parool, 17 mei 2018.</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. With well over 30,000 downloads, the first three editions of the e-book (2013, 2015 and 2016) have proved hugely successful. The new fourth edition summarises over 270 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.

},
note = {<p>IRIS Themes, Vol. III, 4th edition, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, 2017
ISBN: 9789287184351 (print version).</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

Appendix IV to CTIVD report no. 56 to the review report on the multilateral exchange of data on (alleged) jihadists by the AIVD

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

This article provides a more differentiated understanding of mobile health consumers, and considers whether health app use may contribute to new digital inequalities. It focuses on factors associated with mobile health app use, and identifies which factors explain the use of different types of health apps. Data from a large representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 1,079) show that mobile health app users were generally younger, higher educated, and had higher levels of e-health literacy skills than non-users. Interestingly, different usage patterns were found for specific types of health apps. Theory and policy implications are discussed.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides comprehensive rules for the processing of personal data. In addition, the EU lawmaker intends to adopt specific rules to protect confidentiality of communications, in a separate ePrivacy Regulation. Some have argued that there is no need for such additional rules for communications confidentiality.
This paper discusses the protection of the right to confidentiality of communications in Europe. We look at the right’s origins as a fundamental right to assess the rationale for protecting the right. We also analyse how the right is currently protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and under EU law.
We show that the right to communications confidentiality protects three values: trust in communication services, privacy, and freedom of expression. The right aims to ensure that individuals and businesses can safely entrust communication to service providers. Initially, the right protected only postal letters, but it has gradually developed into a strong safeguard for the protection of confidentiality of communications, regardless of the technology used.
Hence, the right does not merely serve individual privacy interests, but also other interests that are crucial for the functioning of our information society. We conclude that separate EU rules to protect communications confidentiality, next to the GDPR, are justified and necessary to protect trust, privacy and freedom and expression.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Het is drie jaar geleden dat Mediaforum een overzicht van tien privacytrends publiceerde. Toen was de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG) nog niet aangenomen, lag Snowden nog fris in het geheugen en heette de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP) nog het College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens. Privacyrecht was ook toen al best belangrijk, maar de aandacht voor dit vakgebied is in de afgelopen jaren behoorlijk gegroeid. Dus laten we de vraag opnieuw stellen: wat is er de afgelopen tijd gebeurd op privacygebied, en vallen daarin grote lijnen te ontwaren?

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In Finland mogen openbare fiscale inkomensgegevens niet onbeperkt worden gepubliceerd: er moet een afweging plaatsvinden welk algemeen belang daarmee is gediend. Deze afweging is vergelijkbaar met die voor algemene privacy inbreuken door de pers geldt.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Online political microtargeting involves monitoring people’s online behaviour, and using the collected data, sometimes enriched with other data, to show people-targeted political advertisements. Online political microtargeting is widely used in the US; Europe may not be far behind. This paper maps microtargeting’s promises and threats to democracy. For example, microtargeting promises to optimise the match between the electorate’s concerns and political campaigns, and to boost campaign engagement and political participation. But online microtargeting could also threaten democracy. For instance, a political party could, misleadingly, present itself as a different one-issue party to different individuals. And data collection for microtargeting raises privacy concerns. We sketch possibilities for policymakers if they seek to regulate online political microtargeting. We discuss which measures would be possible, while complying with the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Uitlatingen van een Turkse politicus over de Armeense genocide (waarvan hij het bestaan ontkende) ten onrechte in Zwitserland veroordeeld.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Het EHRM erkent onder voorwaarden dat er een recht op openbaarheid van bestuur uit artikel 10 is af te leiden.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Is een 'dynamisch' IP adres een persoonsgegeven?
Verzoek om een prejudici\"{e}le beslissing ingediend door het Bundesgerichtshof (hoogste federale rechter in burgerlijke en strafzaken, Duitsland) bij beslissing van 28 oktober 2014.
Verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Begrip, persoonsgegevens’. Internetprotocoladressen. Bewaring door een aanbieder van onlinemediadiensten. Nationale regeling volgens welke geen rekening kan worden gehouden met het gerechtvaardigde belang van de voor de verwerking verantwoordelijke persoon.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

This article discusses ways in which the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and post-GATS free trade agreements may limit the EU's ability to regulate privacy and personal data protection as fundamental rights. After discussing this issue in two dimensions \textendash the vertical relationship between trade and national and European Union (EU) law, and the horizontal relationship between trade and human rights law \textendash the author concludes that these limits are real and pose serious risks.
Inspired by recent developments in safeguarding labour, and environmental standards and sustainable development, the article argues that privacy and personal data protection should be part of, and protected by, international trade deals made by the EU. The EU should negotiate future international trade agreements with the objective of allowing them to reflect the normative foundations of privacy and personal data protection. This article suggests a specific way to achieve this objective.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Millions of European internet users access online platforms where their personal data is being collected, processed, analysed or sold. The existence of some of the largest online platforms is entirely based on data driven business models. In the European Union, the protection of personal data is considered a fundamental right. Under Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, compliance with data protection rules should be subject to control by an independent authority. In the EU, enforcement of privacy rules almost solely takes place by the national data protection authorities. They typically apply sector-specific rules, based on the EU Data Protection Directive. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is the primary enforcer of consumers’ (online) privacy interests. The agency’s competence is not based on the protection of fundamental rights, but on the basis that maintenance of a competitive, fair marketplace will provide the right choices for consumers to take. In this Article the US legal framework will be discussed and compared to the EU legal framework, which forms our finding that in the EU rules on unfair commercial practices could be enforced in a similar manner to protect people’s privacy. In the EU, the many frictions concerning the market/consumer-oriented use of personal data form a good reason to actually deal with these frictions in a market/consumer legal framework.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

On the internet, we encounter take-it-or-leave-it choices regarding our privacy on a daily basis. In Europe, online tracking for targeted advertising generally requires the internet users’ consent to be lawful. Some websites use a tracking wall, a barrier that visitors can only pass if they consent to tracking by third parties. When confronted with such a tracking wall, many people click ‘I agree’ to tracking. A survey that we conducted shows that most people find tracking walls unfair and unacceptable. We analyse under which conditions the ePrivacy Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation allow tracking walls. We provide a list of circumstances to assess when a tracking wall makes consent invalid. We also explore how the EU lawmaker could regulate tracking walls, for instance in the ePrivacy Regulation. It should be seriously considered to ban tracking walls, at least in certain circumstances.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In modern markets, many companies offer so-called “free” services and monetize consumer data they collect through those services. This paper argues that consumer law and data protection law can usefully complement each other. Data protection law can also inform the interpretation of consumer law. Using consumer rights, consumers should be able to challenge excessive collection of their personal data. Consumer organizations have used consumer law to tackle data protection infringements. The interplay of data protection law and consumer protection law provides exciting opportunities for a more integrated vision on “data consumer law”.

},
note = {<p>Draft version. Final version published in Common Market Law Review, 2017, nr. 5, p. 1427-1466.</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

This report presents and draws on multidisciplinary insights into what characterises effective user control over the collection and use of personal data. User controls arise from the interplay of a number of conditions. These are partly technical but also connected to different aspects of user behaviour, the intricacies of design, as well as the internal and external incentives in privacy governance that exist today. Our review of the state of research underscores that devising effective user controls require close collaboration between different disciplines, clear regulatory guidance and scientifically-backed assessments.

},
note = {<p>Amsterdam / Hong Kong: IViR, 2017.</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

Under European data protection law, consent of the data subject is one of the six grounds for lawful processing of personal data. It is such an important ground that lawmakers considered it necessary to provide a legal definition of consent. One of the conditions under this definition is that it needs to be “freely given.” The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 3 has further expanded on this concept in Article 7(4). It refers to a situation under which consent might not be considered “freely given.” If consent is invalid because it is not freely given, the processing is usually unlawful. Consequently, a legal basis for processing is missing. Therefore, this is an important provision. Yet the wording of this new provision is vague and its scope is unclear. Thus, the question arises as to how Article 7(4) should be applied. In this paper, the authors tease out the assessment criteria for the application of this provision on the basis of its text, structure and history. These criteria will then be applied to hypothetical cases in the final section.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

This article assesses how the European Court of Human Rights has responded to the argument that holding online news media liable for reader comments has a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The article demonstrates how the Court first responded by dismissing the argument, and focused on the apparent lack of evidence for any such chilling effect. The article then argues that the Court has moved away from its initial rejection, and now accepts that a potential chilling effect, even without evidence, is integral to deciding whether online news media should be liable for reader comments. Finally, the article argues that this latter view is consistent with the Court’s precedent in other areas of
freedom of expression law where a similar chilling effect may also arise.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Verspreiding antiquarisch exemplaar Mein Kampf valt wel onder 137e 2e Sr, maar is niet strafbaar omdat de beperking in strijd komt met artikel 10 EVRM.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Privacy werknemers bij een kritische publicatie over het bedrijf waar zij werkzaam zijn. Recht op anonimiteit?

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In zijn arrest laat de Hoge Raad zich uit over hoe de rechten op privacy en gegevensbescherming zich verhouden tot het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, appraises the European Commission’s proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation. The study assesses whether the proposal would ensure that the right to the protection of personal data, the right to respect for private life and communications, and related rights enjoy a high standard of protection. The study also highlights the proposal’s potential benefits and drawbacks more generally.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. With 30,000 downloads, the first and second editions of the e-book (2013, 2015) have proved hugely successful. The new updated edition summarises over 250 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). The latest edition of the e-book is also available in French and in German.
For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.

},
note = {<p>IRIS Themes, vol III, new, updated edition, December 2016</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

Dit boek behandelt de zogeheten algemene leerstukken van grondrechten: historische en theoretische achtergronden, de vraag wie rechthebbenden zijn, rechtsbescherming, methoden van interpretatie en reikwijdte, beperkingen, positieve verplichtingen, horizontale werking, samenloop en botsing van grondrechten, interactie van rechtsordes en de taakverdeling tussen wetgever en rechter.
De genoemde thema’s worden rijkelijk ge\"{i}llustreerd aan de hand van specifieke grondrechten, zoals de vrijheid van meningsuiting, de vrijheid van godsdienst, de privacy en het gelijkheidsbeginsel. De lezer maakt op die manier toch kennis met de afzonderlijke grondrechten, terwijl de voorbeelden ervoor zorgen dat het concrete belang van de algemene leerstukken wordt onderstreept.
Daarom is dit boek voor iedere (aankomende) jurist van belang. Het is in het bijzonder geschreven voor het universitair onderwijs.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

Deze bijdrage geeft een overzicht en analyse van de jurisprudentie van het EHRM over de afgelopen zeven jaar. Daarbij wordt eerst kort ingegaan op de reikwijdte en beperkingsvoorwaarden, waarna de behandeling een meer thematisch karakter krijgt. Zo passeren onder meer ‘persvrijheid en privacy’, ‘uitlatingen over rechtszaken’, en ‘hate speech’ de revue. In dit nummer vindt de lezer het eerste deel van de bijdrage. In \'{e}\'{e}n van de volgende nummers volgt het tweede deel.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In this chapter we discuss the relation between privacy and freedom of expression in Europe. In principle, the two rights have equal weight in Europe \textendash which right prevails depends on the circumstances of a case. We use the Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, sometimes called the ‘right to be forgotten’ judgment, to illustrate the difficulties when balancing the two rights. The court decided in Google Spain that people have, under certain conditions, the right to have search results for their name delisted. We discuss how Google and Data Protection Authorities deal with such delisting requests in practice. Delisting requests illustrate that balancing privacy and freedom of expression interests will always remain difficult.

},
note = {<p>Forthcoming in J. Polonetsky, O. Tene, E. Selinger (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy, Cambridge University Press 2017</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}