[UPDATE: the full paper describing this approach has now been published in the Journal of Learning Analytics]
[based on Doug Clow’s liveblog of the talk I did at the LAEP workshop in Amsterdam]
The Article 29 Working Party’s new Opinion on the US–EU Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision leaves a lot of questions unanswered and further prolongs the period of uncertainty for anyone transferring personal data from Europe to the USA.
Reading yet another paper on privacy and big data that concluded that processing should be based on the individual's consent, it occurred to me how much that approach limits the scope and powers of privacy regulators. When using consent to justify processing, pretty much the only question for regulators is whether the consent was fairly obtained – effectively they are reduced to just commenting and ruling on privacy notices. And, indeed, a surprising number of recent opinions and cases do seem to be about physical and digital signage.
Although it's now almost three years since the European Commission published their proposed General Data Protection Regulation, it seems unlikely that a final text will be agreed even in 2015. That means we'll be stuck for at least another year with the 1995 Directive, whose inability to deal with the world of 2015 is becoming increasingly apparent.
One aspect of the Google Spain judgment I’ve not seen discussed is the incentives it creates for search engines.
There's no doubt that some parts of the UK Data Protection Act and the EU Data Protection Directive are badly out of date and need revising. The world they were drafted for in the early 1990s has changed.
A number of people have asked me what the recent European Court judgment in the Google “right to be forgotten” case means; here’s why I have been answering that I don’t know!
I only wish the Article 29 Working Party had published their Opinion on Legitimate Interests several years ago, as it could have saved us a lot of discussion in the federated access management community.
A law that promotes Privacy by Design and Data Minimisation ought to encourage the use of indirectly-linked identifiers, which allow processing to be done separate from, or even without, the ability to identify the person whose information is being processed. However European Data Protection law has never really worked out what these identifiers are. The resulting regulatory uncertainty discourages the use of indirectly-linked identifiers to protect privacy and may even result in obligations that create new privacy risks.
The Article 29 Working Party have published an explanatory document on Binding Corporate Rules for Data Processors, to provide further detail on using the template they published last year.
