On November 4, 2010, the European Commission (the “Commission”) released a draft version of its Communication proposing “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” (the “Communication”) with a view to modernizing the EU legal system for the protection of personal data. The Communication is the result of the Commission’s review of the current legal framework (i.e., Directive 95/46/EC), which started with a high-level conference in Brussels in May 2009, followed by a public consultation and additional targeted stakeholders’ consultations throughout 2010. Although the Commission considers the core principles of the Directive to still be valid, the Communication equally acknowledges that the existing legal framework for data protection in the European Union is no longer able to meet the challenges of rapid technological developments and globalization.
The Communication identifies specific challenges, including the need to:
- Clarify and specify the application of data protection principles to new technologies (e.g., cloud computing)
- Increase harmonization between data protection laws of the EU Member States
- Simplify cross-border data transfers and make them less burdensome
- Increase effective enforcement by local data protection authorities
The Communication gives valuable indications on possible upcoming changes to the Directive, which will impact all businesses operating within the European Union. In particular, the Commission’s strategy to modernize the existing EU data protection framework is based on the following selected key objectives:
- Transparency: improving privacy notices by specifying what information they should contain and how they should be made available (e.g., in relation to minors) and possibly introducing EU model “privacy information notices”
- Personal data breach notification: examining the modalities to introduce a general personal data breach notification requirement
- Rights of the data subjects: improving the ways in which individuals can exercise their rights, for example, by introducing deadlines to respond to individuals’ requests and strengthening the “right to be forgotten” (i.e., the right for individuals to have their data deleted when they are no longer needed for legitimate purposes)
- Consent: clarifying and strengthening the rules on consent
- Sensitive data: examining whether to consider other types of personal data as “sensitive data” (e.g., genetic data) and further harmonizing the conditions under which they may be processed
- Remedies and sanctions: possibly expanding the right to bring an action before the national courts to data protection authorities and civil society associations (e.g., associations representing data subjects’ interests), and strengthening the existing provisions on sanctions
- Registrations: lessening the administrative burden by simplifying and harmonizing the current registration system (e.g., by drawing up a uniform EU-wide registration form)
- Applicable law: revising and clarifying the existing provisions on applicable law with a view to providing the same degree of protection for EU data subjects, regardless of their geographic location and of the location of the data controller
- Data Protection Officer: enhancing data controllers’ responsibility by making the appointment of a company data protection officer mandatory
- Data protection impact assessment: introducing an obligation to carry out a data protection impact assessment when specific risks are involved, for example, when sensitive data are processed or certain technologies are used (e.g., profiling or video surveillance)
- Privacy by design: examining the concept of “privacy by design” and its concrete implementation
- Accountability: possibly introducing a general obligation of “accountability” into the legal framework for the processing of personal data
- International data transfers: improving and streamlining the current procedures for issuing adequacy decisions and international data transfers
- Data Protection Authorities: strengthening, clarifying and harmonizing the status and powers of the national data protection authorities and improving cooperation between them
- Article 29 Working Party: better coordinating the work of the national data protection authorities via the Article 29 Working Party, and possibly creating a mechanism for ensuring consistency in the internal market under the authority of the European Commission
This Communication will serve as a basis for further discussion and assessment. The Commission calls upon stakeholders and the public to comment on the review’s proposals by January 15, 2011. The Commission’s intention is to present legislative proposals in 2011 aimed at revising the legal framework for data protection and assessing the need to adapt other legal instruments to the new data protection framework.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code