Grondrechten
| Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Norval, C., Singh, J.
Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR International Data Privacy Law, Forthcoming. @article{Janssen2021,
title = {Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR}, author = {Janssen, H. and Cobbe, J. and Norval, C. and Singh, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570895}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-01-04}, journal = {International Data Privacy Law}, abstract = {When it comes to online services, users have limited control over how their personal data is processed. This is partly due to the nature of the business models of those services, where data is typically stored and aggregated in data centres. This has recently led to the development of technologies aiming at leveraging user control over the processing of their personal data. Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data. While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain category data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical. We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {forthcoming}, tppubtype = {article} } When it comes to online services, users have limited control over how their personal data is processed. This is partly due to the nature of the business models of those services, where data is typically stored and aggregated in data centres. This has recently led to the development of technologies aiming at leveraging user control over the processing of their personal data.
Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data. While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain category data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical. We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists. |
| Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Singh, J.
Personal Data Stores: a user-centric privacy utopia? Internet Policy Review, Forthcoming. @article{Janssen2021b,
title = {Personal Data Stores: a user-centric privacy utopia?}, author = {Janssen, H. and Cobbe, J. and Singh, J.}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-01-04}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {forthcoming}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Appelman, N., Blom, T., van Duin, A., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Steel, M., Stringhi, E., van Hoboken, J., Zarouali, B.
WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content 2020. @techreport{vanHoboken2020d,
title = {WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and van Duin, A. and Blom, T. and Zarouali, B. and Fahy, R. and Steel, M. and Stringhi, E. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WODC_voorziening_onrechtmatige_content.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-12}, abstract = {Dit onderzoek is uitgegeven als onderdeel van het speerpunt van de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming om de positie van slachtoffers van onrechtmatige uitingen op het internet te verbeteren. Aanleiding is dat het voor mensen als te moeilijk ervaren wordt om onrechtmatige online content snel verwijderd te krijgen. Dit rapport biedt inzicht in de juridische en praktische haalbaarheid van een voorziening voor de verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content die mensen persoonlijk raakt. Onrechtmatige content is informatie, door mensen op het internet geplaatst, die in strijd is met het recht, vanwege de schadelijke gevolgen ervan en/of omdat de belangen van anderen daardoor op ernstige wijze worden aangetast. Hierbij moet, bijvoorbeeld, gedacht worden aan bedreigingen, privacy-inbreuken of wraakporno. Het doel van de onderzochte voorziening is om mensen in staat te stellen deze onrechtmatige online content zo snel mogelijk te verwijderen. Het onderzoek focust op onrechtmatige online content die mensen in hun persoon raakt en daarmee onder het recht op priv\'{e}leven uit artikel 8 Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (“EVRM”) valt.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Dit onderzoek is uitgegeven als onderdeel van het speerpunt van de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming om de positie van slachtoffers van onrechtmatige uitingen op het internet te verbeteren. Aanleiding is dat het voor mensen als te moeilijk ervaren wordt om onrechtmatige online content snel verwijderd te krijgen. Dit rapport biedt inzicht in de juridische en praktische haalbaarheid van een voorziening voor de verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content die mensen persoonlijk raakt. Onrechtmatige content is informatie, door mensen op het internet geplaatst, die in strijd is met het recht, vanwege de schadelijke gevolgen ervan en/of omdat de belangen van anderen daardoor op ernstige wijze worden aangetast. Hierbij moet, bijvoorbeeld, gedacht worden aan bedreigingen, privacy-inbreuken of wraakporno. Het doel van de onderzochte voorziening is om mensen in staat te stellen deze onrechtmatige online content zo snel mogelijk te verwijderen. Het onderzoek focust op onrechtmatige online content die mensen in hun persoon raakt en daarmee onder het recht op privéleven uit artikel 8 Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (“EVRM”) valt.
|
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 5 februari 2020 (NJCM c.s. / Staat der Nederlanden - SyRI-wetgeving) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (45), pp. 6792-6795, 2020. @article{Dommering2020i,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 5 februari 2020 (NJCM c.s. / Staat der Nederlanden - SyRI-wetgeving)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_386.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-10}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {45}, pages = {6792-6795}, abstract = {De SyRI-wetgeving voldoet niet aan de in art. 8 lid 2 EVRM gestelde eis dat de inmenging in de uitoefening van het recht op respect voor het priv\'{e}leven noodzakelijk is in een democratische samenleving, dat wil zeggen noodzakelijk, evenredig (proportioneel) en subsidiair in relatie tot het beoogde doel.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } De SyRI-wetgeving voldoet niet aan de in art. 8 lid 2 EVRM gestelde eis dat de inmenging in de uitoefening van het recht op respect voor het privéleven noodzakelijk is in een democratische samenleving, dat wil zeggen noodzakelijk, evenredig (proportioneel) en subsidiair in relatie tot het beoogde doel.
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M.
2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). @techreport{Senftleben2020e,
title = {The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market}, author = {Senftleben, M. and Angelopoulos, C.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-29}, abstract = {EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content \textendash no matter how specifically it is defined \textendash must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers. This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD'). With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied \textendash in the light of applicable CJEU case law \textendash as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.}, EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content – no matter how specifically it is defined – must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.
This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD'). With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied – in the light of applicable CJEU case law – as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect. |
| Senftleben, M.
Florida International University Law Review, 14 (2), pp. 299-328, 2020. @article{Senftleben2020,
title = {Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565175 https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol14/iss2/11/}, doi = {10.25148/lawrev.14.2.11}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-20}, journal = {Florida International University Law Review}, volume = {14}, number = {2}, pages = {299-328}, abstract = {Algorithmic copyright enforcement \textendash the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet \textendash has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads. To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms. |
| Ausloos, J., Helberger, N., Strycharz, J.
Data Protection or Data Frustration? Individual perceptions and attitudes towards the GDPR European Data Protection Law Review, 6 (3), pp. 407-421, 2020. @article{Strycharz2020,
title = {Data Protection or Data Frustration? Individual perceptions and attitudes towards the GDPR}, author = {Strycharz, J. and Ausloos, J. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EDPLR_2020_3.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2020/3/10}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-13}, journal = {European Data Protection Law Review}, volume = {6}, number = {3}, pages = {407-421}, abstract = {Strengthening individual rights, enhancing control over one’s data and raising awareness were among the main aims the European Commission set for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In order to assess whether these aims have been met, research into individual perceptions, awareness, and understanding of the Regulation is necessary. This study thus examines individual reactions to the GDPR in order to provide insights into user agency in relation to the Regulation. More specifically, it discusses empirical data (survey with N = 1288) on individual knowledge of, reactions to, and rights exercised under the GDPR in the Netherlands. The results show high awareness of the GDPR and knowledge of individual rights. At the same time, the Dutch show substantial reactance to the Regulation and doubt the effectiveness of their individual rights. These findings point to several issues obstructing the GDPR’s effectiveness, and constitute useful signposts for policy-makers and enforcement agencies to prioritise their strategies in achieving the original aims of the Regulation.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Strengthening individual rights, enhancing control over one’s data and raising awareness were among the main aims the European Commission set for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In order to assess whether these aims have been met, research into individual perceptions, awareness, and understanding of the Regulation is necessary. This study thus examines individual reactions to the GDPR in order to provide insights into user agency in relation to the Regulation. More specifically, it discusses empirical data (survey with N = 1288) on individual knowledge of, reactions to, and rights exercised under the GDPR in the Netherlands. The results show high awareness of the GDPR and knowledge of individual rights. At the same time, the Dutch show substantial reactance to the Regulation and doubt the effectiveness of their individual rights. These findings point to several issues obstructing the GDPR’s effectiveness, and constitute useful signposts for policy-makers and enforcement agencies to prioritise their strategies in achieving the original aims of the Regulation.
|
| Yakovleva, S.
Privacy and Data Protection in the EU- and US-led Post- WTO Free Trade Agreements pp. 95-115, 2020, (Chapter in: Coherence and Divergence in Services Trade Law, ed. R.T. Hoffmann & M. Krajewski). @inbook{Yakovleva2020e,
title = {Privacy and Data Protection in the EU- and US-led Post- WTO Free Trade Agreements}, author = {Yakovleva, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Yearbook_International_Economic_Law.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46955-9_5}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-08}, pages = {95-115}, series = {European Yearbook of International Economic Law}, abstract = {The chapter addresses privacy and data protection in FTAs. It takes stock of the evolution of provisions on privacy and data protection in the post-WTO FTAs and FTAs currently under negotiation relying on EU- and US-led FTAs as an empirical basis. The chapter evaluates the trends and patterns of the development of these provisions and provides an outlook for the upcoming negotiations on electronic commerce at the WTO. It highlights the evolution of provisions on privacy and personal data protection in general exceptions, financial and telecommunications chapters, chapters on electronic commerce and digital trade. After identifying trends in the design and wording of these provisions in the EU- and US-led FTAs the chapter concludes that both trading partners tend to prefer their own template for regional FTAs.}, note = {Chapter in: Coherence and Divergence in Services Trade Law, ed. R.T. Hoffmann & M. Krajewski}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } The chapter addresses privacy and data protection in FTAs. It takes stock of the evolution of provisions on privacy and data protection in the post-WTO FTAs and FTAs currently under negotiation relying on EU- and US-led FTAs as an empirical basis. The chapter evaluates the trends and patterns of the development of these provisions and provides an outlook for the upcoming negotiations on electronic commerce at the WTO. It highlights the evolution of provisions on privacy and personal data protection in general exceptions, financial and telecommunications chapters, chapters on electronic commerce and digital trade. After identifying trends in the design and wording of these provisions in the EU- and US-led FTAs the chapter concludes that both trading partners tend to prefer their own template for regional FTAs.
|
| Yakovleva, S.
Personal Data Transfers in International Trade and EU Law: A Tale of Two ‘Necessities’ The Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 1-39, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020d,
title = {Personal Data Transfers in International Trade and EU Law: A Tale of Two ‘Necessities’}, author = {Yakovleva, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/JWIT_2020.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-02}, journal = {The Journal of World Investment & Trade}, pages = {1-39}, abstract = {Cross-border flows of personal data have become essential for international trade. EU law restricts transfers of personal data to a degree that is arguably beyond what is permitted under the EU’s WTO commitments. These restrictions may be justified under trade law’s ‘necessity test.’ The article suggests that they may not pass this test. Yet, from an EU law perspective, the right to the protection of personal data is a fundamental right. An international transfer of personal data constitutes a derogation from this right and, therefore, must be consistent with another necessity test, the ‘strict necessity’ test of the derogation clause of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This article shows how a simultaneous application of the trade law and EU Charter ‘necessities’ to EU restrictions on transfers of personal data creates a Catch-22 situation and sketches the ways out of this compliance deadlock.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Cross-border flows of personal data have become essential for international trade. EU law restricts transfers of personal data to a degree that is arguably beyond what is permitted under the EU’s WTO commitments. These restrictions may be justified under trade law’s ‘necessity test.’ The article suggests that they may not pass this test. Yet, from an EU law perspective, the right to the protection of personal data is a fundamental right. An international transfer of personal data constitutes a derogation from this right and, therefore, must be consistent with another necessity test, the ‘strict necessity’ test of the derogation clause of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This article shows how a simultaneous application of the trade law and EU Charter ‘necessities’ to EU restrictions on transfers of personal data creates a Catch-22 situation and sketches the ways out of this compliance deadlock.
|
| Arnbak, A., Geursen, W., Yakovleva, S.
Kaleidoscopic data-related enforcement in the digital age Common Market Law Review, 57 (5), pp. 1461-1494, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020c,
title = {Kaleidoscopic data-related enforcement in the digital age}, author = {Yakovleva, S. and Geursen, W. and Arnbak, A.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CMLR_2020.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-01}, journal = {Common Market Law Review}, volume = {57}, number = {5}, pages = {1461-1494}, abstract = {The interplay between competition, consumer and data protection law, when applied to data collection and processing practices, may lead to situations where several competent authorities can, independently, carry out enforcement actions against the same practice, or where an authority competent to carry out enforcement in one area of law can borrow the concepts of another area to advance its own goals. The authors call this “kaleidoscopic enforcement”. Kaleidoscopic enforcement may undermine existing coordination mechanisms within specif ic areas, and may lead to both the incoherent enforcement of EU rules applicable to data, and to sub-optimal enforcement. An EU level binding inter-disciplinary coordination mechanism between competition, consumer and data protection authorities is needed. Now the Commission has announced ambitious plans to enhance the coherent application of EU law in several areas, it is the perfect time to work towards creating such an enforcement mechanism.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The interplay between competition, consumer and data protection law, when applied to data collection and processing practices, may lead to situations where several competent authorities can, independently, carry out enforcement actions against the same practice, or where an authority competent to carry out enforcement in one area of law can borrow the concepts of another area to advance its own goals. The authors call this “kaleidoscopic enforcement”. Kaleidoscopic enforcement may undermine existing coordination mechanisms within specif ic areas, and may lead to both the incoherent enforcement of EU rules applicable to data, and to sub-optimal enforcement. An EU level binding
inter-disciplinary coordination mechanism between competition, consumer and data protection authorities is needed. Now the Commission has announced ambitious plans to enhance the coherent application of EU law in several areas, it is the perfect time to work towards creating such an enforcement mechanism. |
| Helberger, N., Huh, J., Milne, G., Strycharz, J.
Macro and Exogenous Factors in Computational Advertising: Key Issues and New Research Directions Journal of Advertising, 49 (4), pp. 377-393, 2020. @article{Helberger2020h,
title = {Macro and Exogenous Factors in Computational Advertising: Key Issues and New Research Directions}, author = {Helberger, N. and Huh, J. and Milne, G. and Strycharz, J.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1811179}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-11}, journal = {Journal of Advertising}, volume = {49}, number = {4}, pages = {377-393}, abstract = {To advance the emerging research field of computational advertising this article describes the new computational advertising ecosystem, identifies key actors within it and interactions among them, and discusses future research agendas. Specifically, we propose systematic conceptualization for the redefined advertising industry, consumers, government, and technology environmental factors, and discuss emerging and anticipated tensions that arise in the macro and exogenous factors surrounding the new computational advertising industry, leading to suggestions for future research directions. From multidisciplinary angles, areas of tension and related research questions are explored from advertising, business, computer science, and legal perspectives. The proposed research agendas include exploring transparency of computational advertising practice and consumer education; understanding the trade-off between explainability and performance of algorithms; exploring the issue of new consumers as free data laborers, data as commodity, and related consumer agency challenges; understanding the relationship between algorithmic transparency and consumers’ literacy; evaluating the trade-off between algorithmic fairness and privacy protection; examining legal and regulatory issues regarding power imbalance between actors in the computational advertising ecosystem; and studying the trade-off between technological innovation and consumer protection and empowerment.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } To advance the emerging research field of computational advertising this article describes the new computational advertising ecosystem, identifies key actors within it and interactions among them, and discusses future research agendas. Specifically, we propose systematic conceptualization for the redefined advertising industry, consumers, government, and technology environmental factors, and discuss emerging and anticipated tensions that arise in the macro and exogenous factors surrounding the new computational advertising industry, leading to suggestions for future research directions. From multidisciplinary angles, areas of tension and related research questions are explored from advertising, business, computer science, and legal perspectives. The proposed research agendas include exploring transparency of computational advertising practice and consumer education; understanding the trade-off between explainability and performance of algorithms; exploring the issue of new consumers as free data laborers, data as commodity, and related consumer agency challenges; understanding the relationship between algorithmic transparency and consumers’ literacy; evaluating the trade-off between algorithmic fairness and privacy protection; examining legal and regulatory issues regarding power imbalance between actors in the computational advertising ecosystem; and studying the trade-off between technological innovation and consumer protection and empowerment.
|
| Eskens, S.
Opinie: De wettelijke mogelijkheden voor online proctoring door universiteiten zijn zeer beperkt Tijdschrift voor Internetrecht, (4), pp. 141-143, 2020. @article{Eskens2020b,
title = {Opinie: De wettelijke mogelijkheden voor online proctoring door universiteiten zijn zeer beperkt}, author = {Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TvI_2020_4.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, journal = {Tijdschrift voor Internetrecht}, number = {4}, pages = {141-143}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie HvJ EU 2 oktober 2018 (Ministerio Fiscal) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (28), pp. 3753-3754, 2020. @article{Dommering2020h,
title = {Annotatie HvJ EU 2 oktober 2018 (Ministerio Fiscal)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_232.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-21}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {28}, pages = {3753-3754}, abstract = {Toegang tot door elektronische communicatiedienstaanbieder verwerkte persoonsgegevens alleen gerechtvaardigd als het om ernstig delict gaat. Identificatiegegevens op SIMkaart van gestolen mobiele telefoon ook bij lichtere vormen van criminaliteit toegestaan toegestaan omdat deze op zich zelf geen inzicht geven in de priv\'{e} communicatie.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Toegang tot door elektronische communicatiedienstaanbieder verwerkte persoonsgegevens alleen gerechtvaardigd als het om ernstig delict gaat. Identificatiegegevens op SIMkaart van gestolen mobiele telefoon ook bij lichtere vormen van criminaliteit toegestaan toegestaan omdat deze op zich zelf geen inzicht geven in de privé communicatie.
|
| Ausloos, J., Mahieu, R.
Harnessing the collective potential of GDPR access rights: towards an ecology of transparency Internet Policy Review, 2020, (Opinion). @article{Mahieu2020,
title = {Harnessing the collective potential of GDPR access rights: towards an ecology of transparency}, author = {Mahieu, R. and Ausloos, J.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/news/harnessing-collective-potential-gdpr-access-rights-towards-ecology-transparency/1487}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-17}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, abstract = {The GDPR’s goal of empowering citizens can only be fully realised when the collective dimensions of data subject rights are acknowledged and supported through proper enforcement. The power of the collective use of data subjects’ rights, however, is currently neither acknowledged nor properly enforced. This is the message we sent to the European Commission in response to its call for feedback for its two-year review of the GDPR. In our submission entitled Recognising and Enabling the Collective Dimension of the GDPR and the Right of Access \textendash A call to support the governance structure of checks and balances for informational power asymmetries, we demonstrate the collective potential of GDPR access rights with a long list of real-life examples.}, note = {Opinion}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The GDPR’s goal of empowering citizens can only be fully realised when the collective dimensions of data subject rights are acknowledged and supported through proper enforcement. The power of the collective use of data subjects’ rights, however, is currently neither acknowledged nor properly enforced. This is the message we sent to the European Commission in response to its call for feedback for its two-year review of the GDPR. In our submission entitled Recognising and Enabling the Collective Dimension of the GDPR and the Right of Access – A call to support the governance structure of checks and balances for informational power asymmetries, we demonstrate the collective potential of GDPR access rights with a long list of real-life examples.
|
| Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J., Monzer, C.
User Perspectives on the News Personalisation Process: Agency, Trust and Utility as Building Blocks Digital Journalism, 8 (9), pp. 1142-1162, 2020. @article{Monzer2020,
title = {User Perspectives on the News Personalisation Process: Agency, Trust and Utility as Building Blocks}, author = {Monzer, C. and M\"{o}ller, J. and Helberger, N. and Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773291}, doi = {10.1080/21670811.2020.1773291}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-16}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, volume = {8}, number = {9}, pages = {1142-1162}, abstract = {With the increasing use of algorithms in news distribution, commentators warn about its possible impacts on the changing relationship between the news media and news readers. To understand the meaning of news personalisation strategies to users, we investigated how they currently experience news personalisation, perceive their role in the personalisation process, and envision increasing the utility of personalised news by giving users more agency and fostering trust. We conducted four focus groups with online news readers in Germany. For the analysis, grounded theory techniques were suitable due to their applicability in reconstructing user perspectives through their own experiences. We found that (1) users fail to distinguish between news personalisation and commercial targeting, which may negatively bias their perception; (2) there is a contradiction in how users perceive themselves as active participants in the process, but lack the means to exercise agency; (3) user concerns extend beyond privacy to what information they receive and their right to personal autonomy\textemdasha solution requires offering users the ability to dynamically adjust their “news interest profiles”; (4) while news personalisation strategies afford new opportunities for introducing reciprocity in the media-audience relationship, negotiating competing logics of journalistic, personal and algorithmic curation remains a challenge.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } With the increasing use of algorithms in news distribution, commentators warn about its possible impacts on the changing relationship between the news media and news readers. To understand the meaning of news personalisation strategies to users, we investigated how they currently experience news personalisation, perceive their role in the personalisation process, and envision increasing the utility of personalised news by giving users more agency and fostering trust. We conducted four focus groups with online news readers in Germany. For the analysis, grounded theory techniques were suitable due to their applicability in reconstructing user perspectives through their own experiences. We found that (1) users fail to distinguish between news personalisation and commercial targeting, which may negatively bias their perception; (2) there is a contradiction in how users perceive themselves as active participants in the process, but lack the means to exercise agency; (3) user concerns extend beyond privacy to what information they receive and their right to personal autonomy—a solution requires offering users the ability to dynamically adjust their “news interest profiles”; (4) while news personalisation strategies afford new opportunities for introducing reciprocity in the media-audience relationship, negotiating competing logics of journalistic, personal and algorithmic curation remains a challenge.
|
| Arnbak, A., Geursen, W,W,, Yakovleva, S.
Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk, (2), pp. 30-37, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020b,
title = {Drie mogelijke boetes van mededingings-, consumenten- en persoonsgegevensautoriteiten voor hetzelfde datagebruik}, author = {Yakovleva, S. and Geursen, W,W, and Arnbak, A.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/MP_2020_164.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-09}, journal = {Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk}, number = {2}, pages = {30-37}, abstract = {Door de toename van datagebruik door ondernemingen is er sprake van convergentie tussen het mededingings-, consumenten- en gegevensbeschermingsrecht. Er kan dan parallelle handhaving plaatsvinden ten aanzien van \'{e}\'{e}n en dezelfde handeling door dezelfde onderneming door drie verschillende autoriteiten. Dat noemen wij caleidoscopische handhaving. Dat heeft volgens ons verschillende keerzijden, waaronder het risico op overhandhaving door drie afzonderlijke procedures van drie afzonderlijke autoriteiten en mogelijk drie boetes. Wij onderzoeken in dit artikel waarom het ne-bis-in-idem-beginsel niet van toepassing is en het beginsel van eendaadse samenloop evenmin (net als in de recente Marine Harvest gun-jumping zaak), waardoor proportionaliteit overblijft.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Door de toename van datagebruik door ondernemingen is er sprake van convergentie tussen het mededingings-, consumenten- en gegevensbeschermingsrecht. Er kan dan parallelle handhaving plaatsvinden ten aanzien van één en dezelfde handeling door dezelfde onderneming door drie verschillende autoriteiten. Dat noemen wij caleidoscopische handhaving. Dat heeft volgens ons verschillende keerzijden, waaronder het risico op overhandhaving door drie afzonderlijke procedures van drie afzonderlijke autoriteiten en mogelijk drie boetes. Wij onderzoeken in dit artikel waarom het ne-bis-in-idem-beginsel niet van toepassing is en het beginsel van eendaadse samenloop evenmin (net als in de recente Marine Harvest gun-jumping zaak), waardoor proportionaliteit overblijft.
|
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.
2020, (Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019). @techreport{vanHoboken2020b,
title = {Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-14}, abstract = {Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden. Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. }, note = {Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.
2020, (A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019). @techreport{vanHoboken2020c,
title = {The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-14}, abstract = {The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada). The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.}, note = {A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms. |
| McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.
Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 2020, (IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg). @book{Voorhoof2020,
title = {Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights}, author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-ed-2020-en-2/16809e45e7}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-08}, abstract = {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. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 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 = {IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {book} } 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. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 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.
|
| Dreier, T., Derclaye E., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Hilty, R., Hugenholtz, P., Metzger, A., Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Senftleben, M., Strowel, A.M., Synodinou, T., Xalabarder, R.
2020. @article{Metzger2020,
title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law \textendash Comment of the European Copyright Society}, author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-07}, abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex \textendash and most controversial \textendash provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law \textendash an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.
|
| Irion, K., Yakovleva, S.
Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade International Data Privacy Law, 10 (3), pp. 201-221, 2020. @article{Irion2020bb,
title = {Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade}, author = {Irion, K. and Yakovleva, S. }, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa003}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-01}, journal = {International Data Privacy Law}, volume = {10}, number = {3}, pages = {201-221}, abstract = {This article positions EU’s external governance of personal data flows against the backdrop of the international controversy on digital trade versus strict privacy laws. Now that the EU has defined its position on horizontal provisions on cross-border data flows and personal data protection, it is both timely and essential to reassess its strategy on the international transfers of personal data in the purview of its future trade agreements. For its own normative approach and regulatory autonomy, the EU has a pivotal role to play in shaping the interface between trade and privacy before the ‘free trade leviathan’ can restrict the policy choices not only of individual states but also of the EU itself. Our contribution aims to break through the present compartmentalization of privacy scholarship and trade lawyers because it situates personal data flows in both disciplines.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This article positions EU’s external governance of personal data flows against the backdrop of the international controversy on digital trade versus strict privacy laws. Now that the EU has defined its position on horizontal provisions on cross-border data flows and personal data protection, it is both timely and essential to reassess its strategy on the international transfers of personal data in the purview of its future trade agreements. For its own normative approach and regulatory autonomy, the EU has a pivotal role to play in shaping the interface between trade and privacy before the ‘free trade leviathan’ can restrict the policy choices not only of individual states but also of the EU itself. Our contribution aims to break through the present compartmentalization of privacy scholarship and trade lawyers because it situates personal data flows in both disciplines.
|
| Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.
Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence The International Journal of Human Rights, 2020. @article{Borgesius2020,
title = {Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence}, author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1080/13642987.2020.1743976}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-29}, journal = {The International Journal of Human Rights}, abstract = {Algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict who will commit crime, who will be a good employee, who will default on a loan, etc. However, algorithmic decision-making can also threaten human rights, such as the right to non-discrimination. The paper evaluates current legal protection in Europe against discriminatory algorithmic decisions. The paper shows that non-discrimination law, in particular through the concept of indirect discrimination, prohibits many types of algorithmic discrimination. Data protection law could also help to defend people against discrimination. Proper enforcement of non-discrimination law and data protection law could help to protect people. However, the paper shows that both legal instruments have severe weaknesses when applied to artificial intelligence. The paper suggests how enforcement of current rules can be improved. The paper also explores whether additional rules are needed. The paper argues for sector-specific \textendash rather than general \textendash rules, and outlines an approach to regulate algorithmic decision-making.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict who will commit crime, who will be a good employee, who will default on a loan, etc. However, algorithmic decision-making can also threaten human rights, such as the right to non-discrimination. The paper evaluates current legal protection in Europe against discriminatory algorithmic decisions. The paper shows that non-discrimination law, in particular through the concept of indirect discrimination, prohibits many types of algorithmic discrimination. Data protection law could also help to defend people against discrimination. Proper enforcement of non-discrimination law and data protection law could help to protect people. However, the paper shows that both legal instruments have severe weaknesses when applied to artificial intelligence. The paper suggests how enforcement of current rules can be improved. The paper also explores whether additional rules are needed. The paper argues for sector-specific – rather than general – rules, and outlines an approach to regulate algorithmic decision-making.
|
| Eskens, S.
JASIST, 71 (9), pp. 1116-1128, 2020. @article{Eskens2020,
title = {The personal information sphere: An integral approach to privacy and related information and communication rights}, author = {Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/jasist_2020.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24354}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-20}, journal = {JASIST}, volume = {71}, number = {9}, pages = {1116-1128}, abstract = {Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a “personal information sphere” for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a “personal information sphere” for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals.
|
| McGonagle, T.
Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM Mediaforum, (1), pp. 2-6, 2020. @article{McGonagle2020d,
title = {Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2020_1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-13}, journal = {Mediaforum}, number = {1}, pages = {2-6}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Korthals Altes, W.
Rechter en uitingsvrijheid – een actueel thema Mediaforum, (1), pp. 1, 2020, (Opinie). @article{Altes2020,
title = {Rechter en uitingsvrijheid \textendash een actueel thema}, author = {Korthals Altes, W.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Opinie_Mediaforum_2020_1-1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-13}, journal = {Mediaforum}, number = {1}, pages = {1}, note = {Opinie}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Janssen, H.
An approach to a fundamental rights impact assessment to automated decision-making International Data Privacy Law, 10 (1), pp. 76-106, 2020. @article{Janssen2020,
title = {An approach to a fundamental rights impact assessment to automated decision-making}, author = {Janssen, H.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz028}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-06}, journal = {International Data Privacy Law}, volume = {10}, number = {1}, pages = {76-106}, abstract = {Companies and other private institutions see great and promising profits in the use of automated decision-making (‘ADM’) for commercial-, financial- or efficiency in work processing purposes. Meanwhile, ADM based on a data subjects’ personal data may (severely) impact its fundamental rights and freedoms. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for a regulatory framework that applies whenever a controller considers and deploys ADM onto individuals on the basis of their personal data. In the design stage of the intended ADM, article 35 (3)(a) obliges a controller to apply a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), part of which is an assessment of ADM’s impact on individual rights and freedoms. Article 22 GDPR determines under what conditions ADM is allowed and endows data subjects with increased protection. Research among companies of various sizes has shown that there is (legal) insecurity about the interpretation of the GDPR (including the provisions relevant to ADM). The first objective of the author is to detect ways forward by offering practical handles to execute a DPIA that includes a slidable assessment of impacts on data subjects’ fundamental rights. This assessment is based on four benchmarks that should help to assess the gravity of potential impacts, i.e. i) to determine the impact on the fundamental right(s) at stake, ii) to establish the context in which the ADM is used, iii) the establishment of who is beneficiary of the use of personal data in the ADM and iv) the establishment who is in control over the data flows in the ADM. From the benchmarks an overall fundamental rights impact assessment about ADM should arise. A second objective is to indicate potential factors and measures that a controller should consider in its risk management after the assessment. The proposed approach should help fostering fair, compliant and trustworthy ADM and contains directions for future research.}, Companies and other private institutions see great and promising profits in the use of automated decision-making (‘ADM’) for commercial-, financial- or efficiency in work processing purposes. Meanwhile, ADM based on a data subjects’ personal data may (severely) impact its fundamental rights and freedoms. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for a regulatory framework that applies whenever a controller considers and deploys ADM onto individuals on the basis of their personal data. In the design stage of the intended ADM, article 35 (3)(a) obliges a controller to apply a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), part of which is an assessment of ADM’s impact on individual rights and freedoms. Article 22 GDPR determines under what conditions ADM is allowed and endows data subjects with increased protection.
Research among companies of various sizes has shown that there is (legal) insecurity about the interpretation of the GDPR (including the provisions relevant to ADM). The first objective of the author is to detect ways forward by offering practical handles to execute a DPIA that includes a slidable assessment of impacts on data subjects’ fundamental rights. This assessment is based on four benchmarks that should help to assess the gravity of potential impacts, i.e. i) to determine the impact on the fundamental right(s) at stake, ii) to establish the context in which the ADM is used, iii) the establishment of who is beneficiary of the use of personal data in the ADM and iv) the establishment who is in control over the data flows in the ADM. From the benchmarks an overall fundamental rights impact assessment about ADM should arise. A second objective is to indicate potential factors and measures that a controller should consider in its risk management after the assessment. The proposed approach should help fostering fair, compliant and trustworthy ADM and contains directions for future research. |
| Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J.
Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression 2020, (Council of Europe, September 2019). @techreport{Helberger2020,
title = {Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression}, author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S. and Drunen, M. van and Bastian, M. and M\"{o}ller, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AI-and-Freedom-of-Expression.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-05}, publisher = {Council of Europe, September 2019}, abstract = {Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."}, note = {Council of Europe, September 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."
|
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (10), pp. 1368-1369, 2020. @article{Dommering2020d,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_20120_72.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-03}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {10}, pages = {1368-1369}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Yakovleva, S.
Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy University of Miami Law Review, 74 (2), pp. 416-519, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020,
title = {Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy}, author = {Yakovleva, S.}, url = {https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss2/5/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-27}, journal = {University of Miami Law Review}, volume = {74}, number = {2}, pages = {416-519}, abstract = {Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.
|
| van Hoboken, J.
Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 255-284, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055. @inbook{vanHoboken2020,
title = {The Privacy Disconnect}, author = {van Hoboken, J.}, url = {https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/human-rights-age-platforms https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/privacy_disconnect.pdf}, isbn = {9780262039055}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-07}, booktitle = {Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. J\orgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019.}, pages = {255-284}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } |
| McGonagle, T.
The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 227-253, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055. @inbook{McGonagle2020b,
title = {The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CoE_and_internet_intermediaries.pdf https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/human-rights-age-platforms}, isbn = {9780262039055}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-07}, booktitle = {Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. J\orgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019.}, pages = {227-253}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } |
| McGonagle, T.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 oktober 2019 (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek) European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2020. @article{McGonagle2020c,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 oktober 2019 (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek)}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/209146}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-04}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases Updates}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| McGonagle, T.
European Human Rights Cases, 2020. @article{McGonagle2020,
title = {Szurovecz t. Hongarije (EHRM, nr. 15428/16) - Court underscores importance of direct news-gathering by journalists}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/207250 https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_EHRC_2020_15428_16.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-01-31}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.
Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10 2020. @online{Fahy2020,
title = {Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10}, author = {Fahy, R. and Voorhoof, D.}, url = {http://www.mediareport.nl/persrecht/21012020/journalist-and-editors-conviction-for-incitement-to-religious-hatred-violated-article-10/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-01-23}, journal = {Media Report}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } |
| Dobber, T., Fahy, R., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.
The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe Internet Policy Review, 8 (4), 2020. @article{Dobber2020,
title = {The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe}, author = {Dobber, T. and Fahy, R. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulation-online-political-micro-targeting-europe}, doi = {10.14763/2019.4.1440}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-01-16}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {8}, number = {4}, abstract = {In this paper, we examine how online political micro-targeting is regulated in Europe. While there are no specific rules on such micro-targeting, there are general rules that apply. We focus on three fields of law: data protection law, freedom of expression, and sector-specific rules for political advertising; for the latter we examine four countries. We argue that the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are necessary, but not sufficient. We show that political advertising, including online political micro-targeting, is protected by the right to freedom of expression. That right is not absolute, however. From a European human rights perspective, it is possible for lawmakers to limit the possibilities for political advertising. Indeed, some countries ban TV advertising for political parties during elections.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In this paper, we examine how online political micro-targeting is regulated in Europe. While there are no specific rules on such micro-targeting, there are general rules that apply. We focus on three fields of law: data protection law, freedom of expression, and sector-specific rules for political advertising; for the latter we examine four countries. We argue that the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are necessary, but not sufficient. We show that political advertising, including online political micro-targeting, is protected by the right to freedom of expression. That right is not absolute, however. From a European human rights perspective, it is possible for lawmakers to limit the possibilities for political advertising. Indeed, some countries ban TV advertising for political parties during elections.
|
| Ausloos, J., Mahieu, R., Veale, M.
JIPITEC, 10 (3), 2019. @article{Ausloos2020,
title = {Getting Data Subject Rights Right: A submission to the European Data Protection Board from international data rights academics, to inform regulatory guidance}, author = {Ausloos, J. and Veale, M. and Mahieu, R.}, url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-3-2019/5031}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-12-31}, journal = {JIPITEC}, volume = {10}, number = {3}, abstract = {We are a group of academics active in research and practice around data rights. We believe that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidance on data rights currently under development is an important point to resolve a variety of tensions and grey areas which, if left unaddressed, may significantly undermine the fundamental right to data protection. All of us were present at the recent stakeholder event on data rights in Brussels on 4 November 2019, and it is in the context and spirit of stakeholder engagement that we have created this document to explore and provide recommendations and examples in this area. This document is based on comprehensive empirical evidence as well as CJEU case law, EDPB (and, previously, Article 29 Working Party) guidance and extensive scientific research into the scope, rationale, effects and general modalities of data rights.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } We are a group of academics active in research and practice around data rights. We believe that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidance on data rights currently under development is an important point to resolve a variety of tensions and grey areas which, if left unaddressed, may significantly undermine the fundamental right to data protection. All of us were present at the recent stakeholder event on data rights in Brussels on 4 November 2019, and it is in the context and spirit of stakeholder engagement that we have created this document to explore and provide recommendations and examples in this area. This document is based on comprehensive empirical evidence as well as CJEU case law, EDPB (and, previously, Article 29 Working Party) guidance and extensive scientific research into the scope, rationale, effects and general modalities of data rights.
|
| Giannopoulou, A.
Access and Reuse of Machine-Generated Data for Scientific Research Erasmus Law Review, (2), pp. 155-165, 2019. @article{Giannopoulou2019bb,
title = {Access and Reuse of Machine-Generated Data for Scientific Research}, author = {Giannopoulou, A.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Erasmus_Law_Review_2019.pdf}, doi = {10.5553/ELR.000136}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-12-20}, journal = {Erasmus Law Review}, number = {2}, pages = {155-165}, abstract = {Data driven innovation holds the potential in transforming current business and knowledge discovery models. For this reason, data sharing has become one of the central points of interest for the European Commission towards the creation of a Digital Single Market. The value of automatically generated data, which are collected by Internet-connected objects (IoT), is increasing: from smart houses to wearables, machine-generated data hold significant potential for growth, learning, and problem solving. Facilitating researchers in order to provide access to these types of data implies not only the articulation of existing legal obstacles and of proposed legal solutions but also the understanding of the incentives that motivate the sharing of the data in question. What are the legal tools that researchers can use to gain access and reuse rights in the context of their research?}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Data driven innovation holds the potential in transforming current business and knowledge discovery models. For this reason, data sharing has become one of the central points of interest for the European Commission towards the creation of a Digital Single Market. The value of automatically generated data, which are collected by Internet-connected objects (IoT), is increasing: from smart houses to wearables, machine-generated data hold significant potential for growth, learning, and problem solving. Facilitating researchers in order to provide access to these types of data implies not only the articulation of existing legal obstacles and of proposed legal solutions but also the understanding of the incentives that motivate the sharing of the data in question. What are the legal tools that researchers can use to gain
access and reuse rights in the context of their research? |
| Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.
European Regulation of Smartphone Ecosystems European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL), 5 (4), pp. 476-491, 2019. @article{Fahy2019eb,
title = {European Regulation of Smartphone Ecosystems}, author = {Fahy, R. and van Hoboken, J.}, url = {https://edpl.lexxion.eu/article/EDPL/2019/4/6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/4/6}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-12-13}, journal = {European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL)}, volume = {5}, number = {4}, pages = {476-491}, abstract = {For the first time, two pieces of EU legislation will specifically target smartphone ecosystems in relation to smartphone and mobile software (eg, iOS and Android) privacy, and use and monetisation of data. And yet, both pieces of legislation approach data use and data monetisation from radically contrasting perspectives. The first is the proposed ePrivacy Regulation, which seeks to provide enhanced protection against user data monitoring and tracking in smartphones, and safeguard privacy in electronic communications. On the other hand, the recently enacted Platform-to-Business Regulation 2019, seeks to bring fairness to platform-business user relations (including app stores and app developers), and is crucially built upon the premise that the ability to access and use data, including personal data, can enable important value creation in the online platform economy. This article discusses how these two Regulations will apply to smartphone ecosystems, especially relating to user and device privacy. The article analyses the potential tension points between the two sets of rules, which result from the underlying policy objectives of safeguarding privacy in electronic communications and the functioning of the digital economy in the emerging era of platform governance. The article concludes with a discussion on how to address these issues, at the intersection of privacy and competition in the digital platform economy.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } For the first time, two pieces of EU legislation will specifically target smartphone ecosystems in relation to smartphone and mobile software (eg, iOS and Android) privacy, and use and monetisation of data. And yet, both pieces of legislation approach data use and data monetisation from radically contrasting perspectives. The first is the proposed ePrivacy Regulation, which seeks to provide enhanced protection against user data monitoring and tracking in smartphones, and safeguard privacy in electronic communications. On the other hand, the recently enacted Platform-to-Business Regulation 2019, seeks to bring fairness to platform-business user relations (including app stores and app developers), and is crucially built upon the premise that the ability to access and use data, including personal data, can enable important value creation in the online platform economy. This article discusses how these two Regulations will apply to smartphone ecosystems, especially relating to user and device privacy. The article analyses the potential tension points between the two sets of rules, which result from the underlying policy objectives of safeguarding privacy in electronic communications and the functioning of the digital economy in the emerging era of platform governance. The article concludes with a discussion on how to address these issues, at the intersection of privacy and competition in the digital platform economy.
|
| Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini, Irion, K.
Fundamental rights review of EU data collection instruments and programmes 2019, (Final report). @online{Brodolini2019,
title = {Fundamental rights review of EU data collection instruments and programmes}, author = {Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini and Irion, K. }, url = {http://www.fondazionebrodolini.it/sites/default/files/final_report_0.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-12-04}, abstract = {This report is the result of a Pilot Project requested by the European Parliament, managed by the Commission and carried out by a group of independent experts. The scope of the project was to establish and support an independent experts’ group to carry out a fundamental rights review of existing EU legislation and instruments in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) that involve the collection, retention, storage or transfer of personal data. One outcome of the project is a database of AFSJ legislation and instruments with individual fundamental rights assessments (at http://brodolini.mbs.it/). The final report concludes that that fundamental rights safeguards need to be more consistently considered and applied in the AFSJ. The conclusions highlight five broad issues for further consideration: ambiguous definitions and open terms; law enforcement access to migration databases; the expansion of centralised databases; data retention periods; and information rights and duties.}, note = {Final report}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } This report is the result of a Pilot Project requested by the European Parliament, managed by the Commission and carried out by a group of independent experts. The scope of the project was to establish and support an independent experts’ group to carry out a fundamental rights review of existing EU legislation and instruments in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) that involve the collection, retention, storage or transfer of personal data. One outcome of the project is a database of AFSJ legislation and instruments with individual fundamental rights assessments (at http://brodolini.mbs.it/). The final report concludes that that fundamental rights safeguards need to be more consistently considered and applied in the AFSJ. The conclusions highlight five broad issues for further consideration: ambiguous definitions and open terms; law enforcement access to migration databases; the expansion of centralised databases; data retention periods; and information rights and duties.
|
| Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.
Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR Strasbourg Observers, 2019. @article{Voorhoof2019,
title = {Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR}, author = {Voorhoof, D. and Fahy, R.}, url = {https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/11/04/denying-journalist-access-to-asylum-seeker-reception-centre-in-hungary-violated-article-10-echr/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-11-15}, journal = {Strasbourg Observers}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| van Daalen, O.
Justitie toegang geven tot versleutelde chatberichten is geen goed idee Trouw, 2019, (Opinie). @article{vanDaalen2019b,
title = {Justitie toegang geven tot versleutelde chatberichten is geen goed idee}, author = {van Daalen, O.}, url = {https://www.trouw.nl/opinie/justitie-toegang-geven-tot-versleutelde-chatberichten-is-geen-goed-idee~bd398447/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-11-08}, journal = {Trouw}, note = {Opinie}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Rucz, M.
Territorial scope of the “right to erasure” limited to the EU IRIS, 2019. @article{Rucz2019b,
title = {Territorial scope of the “right to erasure” limited to the EU}, author = {Rucz, M.}, url = {http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2019/10/article3.en.html}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-22}, journal = {IRIS}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.
Strasbourg Observers, 2019. @article{Fahy2019c,
title = {ECtHR engages in dangerous "triple pirouette" to find criminal prosecution for media coverage of PKK statements did not violate Article 10}, author = {Fahy, R. and Voorhoof, D.}, url = {https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/10/14/ecthr-engages-in-dangerous-triple-pirouette-to-find-criminal-prosecution-for-media-coverage-of-pkk-statements-did-not-violate-article-10/#more-4435}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-14}, journal = {Strasbourg Observers}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 348) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (40), pp. 5658-5659, 2019. @article{Dommering2019e,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 348)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2019_348.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-08}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {40}, pages = {5658-5659}, abstract = {Ophangen van posters waarin bouwbedrijf in verband wordt gebracht met deportaties door gesloten gezinsvoorziening te bouwen in Detentiecentrum Zeist. Oordeel dat veroordeling ter zake smaadschrift geen strijd oplevert met vrijheid van meningsuiting ontoereikend gemotiveerd.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Ophangen van posters waarin bouwbedrijf in verband wordt gebracht met deportaties door gesloten gezinsvoorziening te bouwen in Detentiecentrum Zeist. Oordeel dat veroordeling ter zake smaadschrift geen strijd oplevert met vrijheid van meningsuiting ontoereikend gemotiveerd.
|
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 349) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (40), pp. 5677, 2019. @article{Dommering2019f,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 349)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2019_349.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-08}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {40}, pages = {5677}, abstract = {Het hof kon oordelen dat met de door verdachte opgeplakte poster werd opgeruid tot 'gewelddadig optreden tegen het openbaar gezag' en dat veroordeling niet in strijd is met vrijheid van meningsuiting.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Het hof kon oordelen dat met de door verdachte opgeplakte poster werd opgeruid tot 'gewelddadig optreden tegen het openbaar gezag' en dat veroordeling niet in strijd is met vrijheid van meningsuiting.
|
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.
Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019 Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019b,
title = {Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019}, author = {J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/09/24/conference-on-freedom-of-expression-and-copyright-luxembourg-7-november-2019/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-09-26}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Mil, J. van
Annotatie bij Rb. Noord-Holland 23 mei 2019 Computerrecht, 2019 (4), pp. 267-273, 2019. @article{Mil2019c,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Noord-Holland 23 mei 2019 }, author = {Mil, J. van}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_CR_2019_4.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-09-19}, journal = {Computerrecht}, volume = {2019}, number = {4}, pages = {267-273}, abstract = {De rechtbank bakent de omvang van het inzagerecht af in overeenstemming met eerdere jurisprudentie, waarmee zij verwerkingsverantwoordelijke handvatten biedt voor die gevallen waarin zij zich geconfronteerd ziet met inzageverzoeken.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } De rechtbank bakent de omvang van het inzagerecht af in overeenstemming met eerdere jurisprudentie, waarmee zij verwerkingsverantwoordelijke handvatten biedt voor die gevallen waarin zij zich geconfronteerd ziet met inzageverzoeken.
|
| Hins, A.
Book review of Aleksandra Kuczerawy, Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU Common Market Law Review, 56 (4), pp. 1154-1155, 2019. @article{Hins2019b,
title = {Book review of Aleksandra Kuczerawy, Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU}, author = {Hins, A.}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-08-22}, journal = {Common Market Law Review}, volume = {56}, number = {4}, pages = {1154-1155}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Kabel, J.
Het prinsesje op de erwt en de tovenaarsleerling Privacy & Informatie, 22 (3), pp. 89-90, 2019, (Redactioneel). @article{Kabel2019c,
title = {Het prinsesje op de erwt en de tovenaarsleerling}, author = {Kabel, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/PI_2019_3.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-07-30}, journal = {Privacy & Informatie}, volume = {22}, number = {3}, pages = {89-90}, note = {Redactioneel}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Poort, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.
Prijsdiscriminatie, privacy en publieke opinie Ars Aequi, 2019 , pp. 580-590, 2019. @article{Poort2019c,
title = {Prijsdiscriminatie, privacy en publieke opinie}, author = {Poort, J. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://arsaequi.nl/product/prijsdiscriminatie-privacy-en-publieke-opinie/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-07-04}, journal = {Ars Aequi}, volume = {2019}, pages = {580-590}, abstract = {Webwinkels zijn technisch in staat om elke consument een andere prijs aan te bieden: online prijsdiscriminatie. Dit artikel bespreekt twee enqu\^{e}tes over dergelijke praktijken die zijn gehouden onder de Nederlandse bevolking en onderzoekt de implicaties van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG) voor online prijsdiscriminatie.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Webwinkels zijn technisch in staat om elke consument een andere prijs aan te bieden: online prijsdiscriminatie. Dit artikel bespreekt twee enquêtes over dergelijke praktijken die zijn gehouden onder
de Nederlandse bevolking en onderzoekt de implicaties van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG) voor online prijsdiscriminatie. |