Voor online politieke microtargeting wordt het online-gedrag van mensen in kaart gebracht en worden de verzamelde gegevens gebruikt om mensen gerichte politieke advertenties te tonen. Microtargeting is vanuit de VS komen overwaaien naar Europa en heeft voor- en nadelen voor de democratie. Microtargeting kan politieke partijen helpen om mensen effectief te bereiken en kan politieke betrokkenheid stimuleren. Maar microtargeting kan ook een bedreiging vormen voor de democratie. Zo kan een politieke partij zich verschillend voordoen aan verschillende mensen. Bovendien bedreigt het verzamelen van persoonsgegevens onze privacy. Dit artikel brengt de beloftes en bedreigingen van microtargeting voor de democratie in kaart en schetst mogelijkheden voor beleidsmakers om het gebruik van microtargeting te reguleren.

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

This article introduces U.S. lawyers and academics to the normative foundations, attributes, and strategic approach to regulating personal data advanced by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). We explain the genesis of the GDPR, which is best understood as an extension and refinement of existing requirements imposed by the 1995 Data Protection Directive; describe the GDPR’s approach and provisions; and make predictions about the GDPR’s short and medium-term implications. The GDPR is the most consequential regulatory development in information policy in a generation. The GDPR brings personal data into a detailed and protective regulatory regime, which will influence personal data usage worldwide. Understood properly, the GDPR encourages firms to develop information governance frameworks, to in-house data use, and to keep humans in the loop in decision making. Companies with direct relationships with consumers have strategic advantages under the GDPR, compared to third party advertising firms on the internet. To reach these objectives, the GDPR uses big sticks, structural elements that make proving violations easier, but only a few carrots. The GDPR will complicate and restrain some information-intensive business models. But the GDPR will also enable approaches previously impossible under less-protective approaches.

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

New technologies, purposes and applications to process individuals’ personal data are being developed on a massive scale. But we have not only entered the ‘golden age of personal data’ in terms of its exploitation: ours is also the ‘golden age of personal data’ in terms of regulation of its use. Understood as an enabling right, the architecture of EU data protection law is capable of protecting against many of the negative short- and long-term effects of contemporary data processing. Against the backdrop of big data applications, we evaluate how the implementation of privacy and data protection rules protect against the short- and long-term effects of contemporary data processing. We conclude that from the perspective of protecting individual fundamental rights and freedoms, it would be worthwhile to explore alternative (legal) approaches instead of relying on EU data protection law alone to cope with contemporary data processing.

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

In this chapter we argue that the right to data protection is the posterchild of EU citizenship in the digital era. We start by providing a brief overview of the gradual construction of the right to personal data protection in the EU. We then identify a range of actors who have played a particular role in the building process, including EU citizens themselves. Next, we review the current legal ‘architecture’ of the right to the protection of personal data and discuss whether it could serve as a model for the future development of EU citizenship, notwithstanding remaining challenges at the level of national implementation and public and private compliance with EU rules. Finally, we reflect on the future of the right to data protection, and its contribution to the development of EU citizenship as a legal regime.

},
note = {<p>See also: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788113434/9781788113434.xml</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}

De kinderen van Apple-baas Steve Jobs mochten geen iPad gebruiken. 1 Maar Jobs was niet de enige. Veel techies in Silicon Valley zijn zich bewust van de verslavende effecten van IT \textendash ze hebben de producten namelijk zelf ontwikkeld. En nu steeds meer spijtoptanten oproepen tot regulering van onlinediensten zoals Facebook, vraag ik me af: welke rol kan het privacyrecht daarbij spelen?

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

Blogpost part of a series on data portability and interoperability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smart TV and online media enable precise monitoring of online media consumption, which also forms the basis for personalised recommendations. This new practice challenges EU policy in two respects. Firstly, the legality of monitoring individual media consumption and using personal data of users is primarily addressed under data protection law. Secondly, tracking of viewing behaviour and personalisation of media content can also affect individuals’ freedom to receive information, as well as the realisation of media policy objectives such as media freedom and pluralism, implications that so far are not reflected in media law and policy, or only marginally. This article addresses the increasing reliance on personal data and personalised services in the audiovisual and online media sector and queries the appropriateness of the legal status quo in light of implementation and enforcement actions in Germany and the Netherlands. The analysis concludes with a call for media policy makers and regulators to pay more attention to the issue of ‘smart surveillance’ of media users, and develops a number of concrete recommendations on how to accommodate the specific privacy concerns of media users.

},
note = {<p>See also: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596116302865</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}