Nothing challenges the effectiveness of data protection law like technological innovation. You think you have cracked a technology neutral framework and then along comes the next evolutionary step in the chain to rock the boat. It happened with the cloud. It happened with social media, with mobile, with online behavioural targeting and with the Internet of Things. And from the combination of all of that, artificial intelligence is emerging as the new testing ground. 21st century artificial intelligence relies on machine learning, and machine learning relies on…? You guessed it: Data. Artificial intelligence is essentially about problem solving and for that we need data, as much data as possible. Against this background, data privacy and cybersecurity legal frameworks around the world are attempting to shape the use of that data in a way that achieves the best of all worlds: progress and protection for individuals. Is that realistically achievable?
It is finally here. This is the year of the GDPR. A journey that started with an ambitious policy paper about modernising data protection almost a decade ago – a decade! – is about to reach flying altitude. No more ‘in May next year this, in May next year that’. Our time has come. Given the amount of attention that the GDPR has received in recent times, data protection professionals are in high demand but we are ready. We knew this was coming and we have had years to prepare. However, even the most seasoned practitioners are at risk of being engulfed by the frantic fire-fighting mood out there. The hamster wheel of GDPR compliance is spinning faster and faster, but it is precisely now when we must look up, see the bigger picture and focus on getting the important things right.
Following the European Commission and European Parliament’s proposed versions of the EU Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications, we are now waiting for the Council of the European Union to agree their position before discussions between the three bodies can begin. A discussion paper from the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council dated 11 January 2018 shows that the Council is still considering multiple options in relation to several critical issues.
Under the Data Protection Directive, each instance of data processing requires a legal justification – a “ground for processing”. This fundamental feature of EU data protection law remains unchanged under the draft Regulation. However, the bar for showing the existence of certain grounds for processing will be set higher, particularly in relation to consent. This entry is an excerpt from Hogan Lovells’ “Future-proofing privacy: A guide to preparing for the EU Data Protection Regulation.”
The Conference of the German Federal and State Data Protection Authorities during its last meeting on 8 and 9 October adopted the resolution “Data Protection in the Car”. The resolution expresses a concern about what it describes as privacy risks involved in the growing collection and processing of personal data in cars, and the interests of various actors (car manufacturers, service providers, insurance companies, employers) in using those data.
The EU Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE”) voted on Monday to adopt its report on the draft General Data Protection Regulation and the separate Directive for the law enforcement sector. This vote sets out the Parliament’s position for its negotiations with the Council and Commission (known as the “trialogue” stage). The Committee aims to have a plenary Parliamentary vote in March before the Parliamentary elections.
Following the advice of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its November 2011 ruling, the Spanish Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of Spain’s data protection law that it said went beyond the requirements of the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), in a ruling made public February 13, 2012.
A decision last week by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) introduces an important change to Spanish data protection framework – the “legitimate interest” justification.