All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals. Issue Section:. You do not currently have access to this article. Download all figures. Sign in. You could not be signed in.
The impact of the EU general data protection regulation on scientific research
Sign In Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution Sign in.
- Arts and Technology: First International Conference, ArtsIT 2009, Yi-Lan, Taiwan, September 24-25, 2009 - Revised Selected Papers.
- The Emergence of Personal Data Protection as a Fundamental Right of the EU?
- Agglomeration in Industry: Occurence and Applications, Vol. 1.
Purchase Subscription prices and ordering Short-term Access To purchase short term access, please sign in to your Oxford Academic account above. This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. View Metrics. Article 25 1 measures are to be taken at both the design stage and processing stage. The same necessarily applies for Article 25 2 measures even if Article 25 2 does not specifically spell this out.
- Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of the Work, Second Edition;
- Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 2004 Hands-On Training.
- The Flower of Paradise: The Institutionalized Use of the Drug Qat in North Yemen.
- The Accursed Share, Vols. 2 and 3: The History of Eroticism and Sovereignty.
- Pdf The Emergence Of Personal Data Protection As A Fundamental Right Of The Eu.
On their face, both sets of measures are to be taken by controllers only. Controllers are basically defined as entities that determine or co-determine the purposes, conditions and means of processing personal data Article 4 7. The Article 25 duty plays a role in the application of numerous other GDPR provisions, although this is unhelpfully not made clear in Article 25 itself.
The latter phrasing falls short of making data protection by design and by default a prerequisite for such tenders, but is otherwise confusingly ambiguous as to how much weight the principles should be given. Article 25 suffers from multiple weaknesses. One obvious weakness is the vagueness and complexity of its language. This is likely to create difficulties for the enforcement of Article Invoking stiff sanctions for breach of Article 25 1 will not be easy given the very general and process-oriented way in which its obligations are formulated.
At the same time, the limited utility of wielding a stick necessitates relying on other incentives to abide by Article 25 requirements. Some such incentives do exist, but they are few and far between.
The provisions of Articles 83 2 d , 34 3 a and 6 4 e set out in section 3. However, their role as incentives in this respect is indirect and obtuse. This hinders the ability of Article 25 to galvanise the engineering community to work in the direction wished. While the ideals of PbD and Article 25 are not entirely alien to that community, which has occasionally articulated and acted upon privacy concerns of its own accord, it is, on the whole, a notoriously self-centric community and relatively impervious to external, non-technocratic values.
From Privacy to Data Protection in the eu: Implications for Big Data Health Research
There is considerable evidence to suggest that it is far from embracing the ideals of PbD and Article 25 to the degree that the latter requires. The traction of Article 25 on information systems development is likely also to be hindered by its limited reach. As pointed out above, Article 25 measures are primarily imposed on data controllers only. Yet, we cannot assume that basic design decisions in information systems development will be exclusively or predominantly taken by entities acting in a controller capacity.
This notwithstanding, it is highly doubtful that Article 25 embraces all relevant elements of the engineering and design community.
Both are centrally involved in the development of basic internet standards, many of which have a significant impact on the daily processing of huge amounts of personal data. Moreover, there are numerous information systems development processes in which it is extremely difficult to delineate clear lines of responsibility and liability according to the actor categories laid down in data protection law.
The propriety lex ferenda if not lex lata of this relaxation in stringency is questionable given the arguably enhanced normative status of data protection by design and by default outlined in section 2. Market factors are likely to create further difficulties for the traction of Article 25 on information systems development. Indeed, Article 25 might well be important for adding a new category of market, additional to the four traditional privacy markets identified by Acquisti and his colleagues.
The latter problem exacerbates the former two.
Issues in Privacy and Data Protection
On paper, Article 25 is an ambitiously conceived provision that seeks to reach into the heart of the machinery of our information age and reshape it to respect important values. As such, it has much to commend it. Unfortunately, its ability to reshape this machinery is likely to be significantly undermined by a variety of weaknesses, including fuzzy legalese and a more general lack of clarity over the parameters and methodologies for achieving its goals, a paucity of salient and strong incentives to abide by its requirements, and a failure to communicate clearly with those working directly with the design and development of information systems.
Augmenting these weaknesses is the fact that the thrust of Article 25, at least if followed through stringently, is at odds with the basic modus operandi of many powerful organisations, both in the private and public sectors. Despite these shortcomings, Article 25 is, at the very least, valuable as a catalyst for the mental hardwiring of privacy-related interests. Following on in this vein, it is unreasonable to expect Article 25 to provide detailed guidance for such systems development, apart from defining goal posts and setting out legal incentives for moving towards them; the detailed guidance must be developed elsewhere.
In this regard, Article 25 should be seen as a weighty conversation-starter in the necessary dialogue between data protection authorities and privacy advocates on the one side and data controllers, processors and engineers on the other, over the way forward in the technological and organisational hardwiring of privacy-related interests.
Oppgrader til nyeste versjon av Internet eksplorer for best mulig visning av siden. Hopp til bunn-navigering.
About this book This book explores the coming into being in European Union EU law of the fundamental right to personal data protection. Show all.