Weiter zum Inhalt

Die Suche erzielte 31 Treffer.

The Data-Laundromat? Journal Artikel open-access

Public-Private-Partnerships and Publicly Available Data in the Area of Law Enforcement

Thilo Gottschalk

European Data Protection Law Review, Jahrgang 6 (2020), Ausgabe 1, Seite 21 - 40

Law enforcement increasingly relies on complex machine learning approaches to support investigations. With limited knowledge and funding LEAs often depend on opaque private-public collaborations. Failure to provide legal bases on the national level paired with shortcomings both in the GDPR and Directive EU-2016/680 (LED) result in severe risks for fundamental rights of EU citizens. To overcome these risks an interdisciplinary discussion is required. This paper hence sheds light on technical challenges and misconceptions as well as legal shortcomings to foster a common understanding of the challenges to find out how they might be addressed. To do so, the author searches for common ground of ‘public availability’ and reviews currently used technical approaches and common processing constellations. Based on the outcomes, the author proposes a change in the LED and discusses a centralised institution to govern access to novel data driven technology. Keywords: law enforcement; public-private partnership; data protection; GDPR; LED


Shortcomings of the Passenger Name Record Directive in Light of Opinion 1/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union Journal Artikel

Sara Roda

European Data Protection Law Review, Jahrgang 6 (2020), Ausgabe 1, Seite 66 - 83

By 25 May 2020, the European Commission is obliged to conduct a full review of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) Directive and provide a comprehensive report to the European Parliament and the Council on seven key aspects of the said Directive. These range from an assessment of the necessity and proportionality for collecting and processing PNR data in relation to each of the Directive’s purposes, to the length of the data retention period, and even the effectiveness of exchanging information among Member States, including statistical information on the number of passengers whose PNR data has been collected, exchanged or identified for further examination. The review could lead the European Commission to present a legislative proposal to amend the PNR Directive which could either reinforce, maintain or dilute the EU PNR system. More recently, two not-for-profit associations have legally challenged the national PNR schemes based on the PNR Directive. This paper questions the validity of certain provisions of the Directive in light of Opinion 1/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 July 2017 concerning the EU-Canada PNR Agreement. It also calls on the European Commission, as guardian of the EU Treaties and of EU law, to conform the PNR Directive to the Luxembourg Court case-law on mass data retention schemes, taking advantage of the review momentum. Keywords: CJEU; Opinion 1/15; Directive 2016/681; data protection; PNR; law enforcement; data retention; Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights






The Right to Explanation under the Right of Access to Personal Data: Journal Artikel

Legal Foundations in and Beyond the GDPR

Diana Dimitrova

European Data Protection Law Review, Jahrgang 6 (2020), Ausgabe 2, Seite 211 - 230

The present article sets out to contribute to the discussion on the right to explanation of (automated) decisions and profiles by examining it in light of the right to access to one’s personal data. To that end it explores the right of access and explanation obligations beyond the GDPR by focusing also on Directive 2016/680, the CJEU case law, CoE Convention 108+ and ECtHR case law. The paper argues that whereas the right to know the reasoning and criteria underlying a decision could be derived from the right of access, this is less explicit in the case-law of the CJEU as compared to the ECtHR and Convention 108+. The discussion also points to the necessity of clarifying the relationship between and boundaries of data protection rights and other areas of law, eg the right to effective remedy and the obligation to state reasons for decisions. Keywords: right to explanation, right of access, GDPR, data rotection


Fundamental Rights, the Normative Keystone of DPIA Journal Artikel

Dara Hallinan, Nicholas Martin

European Data Protection Law Review, Jahrgang 6 (2020), Ausgabe 2, Seite 178 - 193

The General Data Protection Regulation mandates that data controllers conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for certain processing activities. The core of the substance of the DPIA obligation requires that data controllers engage in ‘an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects [posed by the processing operation]’. A common interpretation has emerged that this obligation only requires data controllers to engage in a ‘compliance assessment’: an assessment of the risks of processing considering the concrete provisions of the GDPR. This article takes issue with this interpretation and offers an elaborated conceptual argument supporting the following, alternative, position: the obligation that the DPIA risk assessment process include ‘an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects’ requires data controllers to take the complete catalogue of rights and freedoms, outlined in foundational European fundamental rights instruments, as the key normative reference point for the DPIA risk assessment process. Keywords: data protection, privacy, GDPR, data protection impact assessment, DPIA, fundamental rights


Codes of (Mis)conduct? An Appraisal of Articles 40-41 GDPR in View of the 1995 Data Protection Directive and Its Shortcomings Journal Artikel

Carl Vander Maelen

European Data Protection Law Review, Jahrgang 6 (2020), Ausgabe 2, Seite 231 - 242

The EU increasingly integrates alternative regulatory instruments (ARIs) in legislation, encouraging private stakeholder participation in the implementation and enforcement processes of those hard law instruments. Articles 40 and 41 GDPR are an example thereof, stipulating that bodies representing categories of controllers or processors should develop codes of conduct to specify the concrete application of the GDPR’s principles, rights and obligations. This article first analyses the legislative predecessor to these articles: Article 27 of the Data Protection Directive (DPD). Available information concludes that both the so-called ‘Community codes’ and national codes under this provision failed to make their desired impact. Second, this contribution inspects the key objectives, as well as the material and formal content of Articles 40 and 41 GDPR to identify similarities and differences between the DPD and the GDPR. Preliminary and cautious predictions are offered on whether GDPR codes of conduct will chart a more successful course. Keywords: codes of conduct, GDPR, 1995 Data Protection Directive, Articles 40-41 GDPR, co-regulation