Online Personal Data Processing and EU Data Protection Reform. CEPS Task Force Report, April 2013

This report sheds light on the fundamental questions and underlying tensions between current policy objectives, compliance strategies and global trends in online personal data processing, assessing the existing and future framework in terms of effective regulation and public policy. Based on the discussions among the members of the CEPS Digital Forum and independent research carried out by the rapporteurs, policy conclusions are derived with the aim of making EU data protection policy more fit for purpose in today’s online technological context. This report constructively engages with the EU data protection framework, but does not provide a textual analysis of the EU data protection reform proposal as such

Quantum surveillance and 'shared secrets'. A biometric step too far? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, July 2010

It is no longer sensible to regard biometrics as having neutral socio-economic, legal and political impacts. Newer generation biometrics are fluid and include behavioural and emotional data that can be combined with other data. Therefore, a range of issues needs to be reviewed in light of the increasing privatisation of ‘security’ that escapes effective, democratic parliamentary and regulatory control and oversight at national, international and EU levels, argues Juliet Lodge, Professor and co-Director of the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence at the University of Leeds, U

The impact of the general data protection regulation on the financial services’ industry of small European states

This paper is based on the unpublished Thesis by Magri, A. (2018). An Evaluation of the Impact of GDPR on the Local Financial Services Industry. Banking and Finance, Department of Banking and Finance, Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy, University of Malta, supervised by Dr. Simon GrimaPurpose: With this paper we evaluate the impact and implications of the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the Financial Services Industry in small European States; specifically Malta, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Cyprus. That is, countries within the EU having less than 3 million population. Design/methodology/approach: We collected our primary data by carrying out scheduled semi-structured interviews (using WhatsApp®, Messenger® and Skype®) with 63 participants who are working directly or indirectly with GDPR in financial services between November 2018 and April 2019. The interview was structured using two impact themes, ‘Trust, Standardisation and Reputation’ and ‘Training and ‘Resources’, with 18 statements under each theme to which participants were required to answer using a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. To answer the research questions, the empirical data collected was subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS (Version 21) namely descriptive statistics and box plots and later MANOVA, while the qualitative data was analysed using the thematic approach. Findings: We found that overall, participants feel that although GDPR has increased the work load and costs, it has helped to improve the trust, standardisation and reputation of the institutions they represent. However, this comes with some repercussions from the data subjects who are not conversant with the regulation and are apprehensive by the consents required. Originality/value: Although, all States might be represented in the decision process, the larger States usually take over and sometimes dictate the final decision. The concept of proportionality in regulations is not clean and is not effectively managed, at the disadvantage of the smaller States. Therefore, this paper is important since it voices the cries of smaller States and allows for an understanding of the impact and implications of new regulations to smaller jurisdictions, in this case within the EU.peer-reviewe

Catalyzing Privacy Law

The United States famously lacks a comprehensive federal data privacy law. In the past year, however, over half the states have proposed broad privacy bills or have established task forces to propose possible privacy legislation. Meanwhile, congressional committees are holding hearings on multiple privacy bills. What is catalyzing this legislative momentum? Some believe that Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in 2018, is the driving factor. But with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which took effect in January 2020, California has emerged as an alternate contender in the race to set the new standard for privacy.Our close comparison of the GDPR and California’s privacy law reveals that the California law is not GDPR-lite: it retains a fundamentally American approach to information privacy. Reviewing the literature on regulatory competition, we argue that California, not Brussels, is catalyzing privacy law across the United States. And what is happening is not a simple story of powerful state actors. It is more accurately characterized as the result of individual networked norm entrepreneurs, influenced and even empowered by data globalization. Our study helps explain the puzzle of why Europe’s data privacy approach failed to spur US legislation for over two decades. Finally, our study answers critical questions of practical interest to individuals—who will protect my privacy?—and to businesses—whose rules should I follow

Disagreeable Privacy Policies: Mismatches between Meaning and Users’ Understanding

Privacy policies are verbose, difficult to understand, take too long to read, and may be the least-read items on most websites even as users express growing concerns about information collection practices. For all their faults, though, privacy policies remain the single most important source of information for users to attempt to learn how companies collect, use, and share data. Likewise, these policies form the basis for the self-regulatory notice and choice framework that is designed and promoted as a replacement for regulation. The underlying value and legitimacy of notice and choice depends, however, on the ability of users to understand privacy policies. This paper investigates the differences in interpretation among expert, knowledgeable, and typical users and explores whether those groups can understand the practices described in privacy policies at a level sufficient to support rational decision-making. The paper seeks to fill an important gap in the understanding of privacy policies through primary research on user interpretation and to inform the development of technologies combining natural language processing, machine learning and crowdsourcing for policy interpretation and summarization. For this research, we recruited a group of law and public policy graduate students at Fordham University, Carnegie Mellon University, and the University of Pittsburgh (“knowledgeable users”) and presented these law and policy researchers with a set of privacy policies from companies in the e-commerce and news & entertainment industries. We asked them nine basic questions about the policies’ statements regarding data collection, data use, and retention. We then presented the same set of policies to a group of privacy experts and to a group of non-expert users. The findings show areas of common understanding across all groups for certain data collection and deletion practices, but also demonstrate very important discrepancies in the interpretation of privacy policy language, particularly with respect to data sharing. The discordant interpretations arose both within groups and between the experts and the two other groups. The presence of these significant discrepancies has critical implications. First, the common understandings of some attributes of described data practices mean that semi-automated extraction of meaning from website privacy policies may be able to assist typical users and improve the effectiveness of notice by conveying the true meaning to users. However, the disagreements among experts and disagreement between experts and the other groups reflect that ambiguous wording in typical privacy policies undermines the ability of privacy policies to effectively convey notice of data practices to the general public. The results of this research will, consequently, have significant policy implications for the construction of the notice and choice framework and for the US reliance on this approach. The gap in interpretation indicates that privacy policies may be misleading the general public and that those policies could be considered legally unfair and deceptive. And, where websites are not effectively conveying privacy policies to consumers in a way that a “reasonable person” could, in fact, understand the policies, “notice and choice” fails as a framework. Such a failure has broad international implications since websites extend their reach beyond the United States

Design Challenges for GDPR RegTech

The Accountability Principle of the GDPR requires that an organisation can demonstrate compliance with the regulations. A survey of GDPR compliance software solutions shows significant gaps in their ability to demonstrate compliance. In contrast, RegTech has recently brought great success to financial compliance, resulting in reduced risk, cost saving and enhanced financial regulatory compliance. It is shown that many GDPR solutions lack interoperability features such as standard APIs, meta-data or reports and they are not supported by published methodologies or evidence to support their validity or even utility. A proof of concept prototype was explored using a regulator based self-assessment checklist to establish if RegTech best practice could improve the demonstration of GDPR compliance. The application of a RegTech approach provides opportunities for demonstrable and validated GDPR compliance, notwithstanding the risk reductions and cost savings that RegTech can deliver. This paper demonstrates a RegTech approach to GDPR compliance can facilitate an organisation meeting its accountability obligations