Platform Privacy: The Missing Piece of Data Protection Legislation

After years of deliberation, the EU commission sped up the reform process of a common EU digital policy considerably in 2015 by launching the EU digital single market strategy. In particular, two core initiatives of the strategy were agreed upon: General Data Protection Regulation and the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive law texts. A new initiative was additionally launched addressing the role of online platforms. This paper focuses on the platform privacy rationale behind the data protection legislation, primarily based on the proposal for a new EU wide General Data Protection Regulation. We analyse the legislation rationale from an Information System perspective to understand the role user data plays in creating platforms that we identify as “processing silos”. Generative digital infrastructure theories are used to explain the innovative mechanisms that are thought to govern the notion of digitalization and successful business models that are affected by digitalization. We foresee continued judicial data protection challenges with the now proposed Regulation as the adoption of the “Internet of Things” continues. The findings of this paper illustrate that many of the existing issues can be addressed through legislation from a platform perspective. We conclude by proposing three modifications to the governing rationale, which would not only improve platform privacy for the data subject, but also entrepreneurial efforts in developing intelligent service platforms. The first modification is aimed at improving service differentiation on platforms by lessening the ability of incumbent global actors to lock-in the user base to their service/platform. The second modification posits limiting the current unwanted tracking ability of syndicates, by separation of authentication and data store services from any processing entity. Thirdly, we propose a change in terms of how security and data protection policies are reviewed, suggesting a third party auditing procedure.

Global Standards: Recent Developments betweend the Poles of Privacy and Cloud Computing

The development of the Internet has made it possible to transfer data ‘around the globe at the click of a mouse’. Especially fresh business models such as cloud computing, the newest driver to illustrate the speed and breadth of the online environment, allow this data to be processed across national borders on a routine basis. A number of factors cause the Internet to blur the lines between public and private space: Firstly, globalization and the outsourcing of economic actors entrain an ever-growing exchange of personal data. Secondly, the security pressure in the name of the legitimate fight against terrorism opens the access to a significant amount of data for an increasing number of public authorities.And finally,the tools of the digital society accompany everyone at each stage of life by leaving permanent individual and borderless traces in both space and time. Therefore, calls from both the public and private sectors for an international legal framework for privacy and data protection have become louder. Companies such as Google and Facebook have also come under continuous pressure from governments and citizens to reform the use of data. Thus, Google was not alone in calling for the creation of ‘global privacystandards’. Efforts are underway to review established privacy foundation documents. There are similar efforts to look at standards in global approaches to privacy and data protection. The last remarkable steps were the Montreux Declaration, in which the privacycommissioners appealed to the United Nations ‘to prepare a binding legal instrument which clearly sets out in detail the rights to data protection and privacy as enforceable human rights’. This appeal was repeated in 2008 at the 30thinternational conference held in Strasbourg, at the 31stconference 2009 in Madrid and in 2010 at the 32ndconference in Jerusalem. In a globalized world, free data flow has become an everyday need. Thus, the aim of global harmonization should be that it doesn’t make any difference for data users or data subjects whether data processing takes place in one or in several countries. Concern has been expressed that data users might seek to avoid privacy controls by moving their operations to countries which have lower standards in their privacy laws or no such laws at all. To control that risk, some countries have implemented special controls into their domestic law. Again, such controls may interfere with the need for free international data flow. A formula has to be found to make sure that privacy at the international level does not prejudice this principle.

EU Data Protection Law and Targeted Advertising: Consent and the Cookie Monster - Tracking the crumbs of online user behaviour

This article provides a holistic legal analysis of the use of cookies in Online Behavioural Advertising. The current EU legislative framework is outlined in detail, and the legal obligations are examined. Consent and the debates surrounding its implementation form a large portion of the analysis. The article outlines the current difficulties associated with the reliance on this requirement as a condition for the placing and accessing of cookies. Alternatives to this approach are explored, and the implementation of solutions based on the application of the Privacy by Design and Privacy by Default concepts are presented. This discussion involves an analysis of the use of code and, therefore, product architecture to ensure adequate protections.

Digital First Sale Doctrine Ante Portas – Exhaustion in the Online Environment

The purpose of the article is to provide first a doctrinal summary of the concept, rules and policy of exhaustion, first, on the international and EU level, and, later, under the law of the United States. Based upon this introduction, the paper turns to the analysis of the doctrine by the pioneer court decisions handed over in the UsedSoft, ReDigi, the German e-book/audio book cases, and the pending Tom Kabinet case from the Netherlands. Questions related to the licence versus sale dichotomy; the so-called umbrella solution; the “new copy theory”, migration of digital copies via the internet; the forward-and-delete technology; the issue of lex specialis and the theory of functional equivalence are covered later on. The author of the present article stresses that the answers given by the respective judges of the referred cases are not the final stop in the discussion. The UsedSoft preliminary ruling and the subsequent German domestic decisions highlight a special treatment for computer programs. On the other hand, the refusal of digital exhaustion in the ReDigi and the audio book/e-book cases might be in accordance with the present wording of copyright law; however, they do not necessarily reflect the proper trends of our ages. The paper takes the position that the need for digital exhaustion is constantly growing in society and amongst businesses. Indeed, there are reasonable arguments in favour of equalizing the resale of works sold in tangible and intangible format. Consequently, the paper urges the reconsideration of the norms on exhaustion on the international and EU level.

Scoping Electronic Communication Privacy Rules: Data, Services and Values

We use electronic communication networks for more than simply traditional telecommunications: we access the news, buy goods online, file our taxes, contribute to public debate, and more. As a result, a wider array of privacy interests is implicated for users of electronic communications networks and services. . This development calls into question the scope of electronic communications privacy rules. This paper analyses the scope of these rules, taking into account the rationale and the historic background of the European electronic communications privacy framework. We develop a framework for analysing the scope of electronic communications privacy rules using three approaches: (i) a service-centric approach, (ii) a data-centric approach, and (iii) a value-centric approach. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The current e-Privacy Directive contains a complex blend of the three approaches, which does not seem to be based on a thorough analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. The upcoming review of the directive announced by the European Commission provides an opportunity to improve the scoping of the rules.

Welcome to the Jungle: The Liability of Internet Intermediaries for Privacy Violations in Europe

In Europe, roughly three regimes apply to the liability of Internet intermediaries for privacy violations conducted by users through their network. These are: the e-Commerce Directive, which, under certain conditions, excludes them from liability; the Data Protection Directive, which imposes a number of duties and responsibilities on providers processing personal data; and the freedom of expression, contained inter alia in the ECHR, which, under certain conditions, grants Internet providers several privileges and freedoms. Each doctrine has its own field of application, but they also have partial overlap. In practice, this creates legal inequality and uncertainty, especially with regard to providers that host online platforms and process User Generated Content.