It appears that we may be about to experience a new phase in the life of Article 5 (3) of the ePrivacy Directive as amended in 2009, as brief as it may possibly be as a result of the coming Regulation and the revisions that the ePrivacy Directive may be subject to in its wake.
Twitter privacy activist Alexander Hanff has been able to create considerable attention (such as here and here) for his position that client side scripts used by publishers in order to detect AdBlockers used by their (would-be) readers are in conflict with said Article, posting on Twitter a letter from the Günther Oettinger’s team in the EU Commission that, as per him, confirms his position.
Aside from the slightly amusing twist that the Commission, in making reference in the same letter to add-ons or plug-ins expressing a user’s preference regarding, for example, whether or not he or she does or does not accept the storage of information on his/her “terminal equipment”, appears to overlook that adblockers have to be detected first before they can be “respected” as conveying a preference, we shall have a brief look at how things would play out under German law, as it is in place at this time. Continue reading →
If private persons use social networking services (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, GooglePlus) in the Internet these days, hardly anyone might think about legal obligations for these users under the current data protection regime. Why should natural, private persons be considered “data controllers” in the sense of Art. 2 (d) of the European data protection directive (95/46/EC), if they share photos or write comments? They are only acting in a private and personal capacity. Well, this view might be true from a factual perspective. But with regard to European data protection law, already in a 2009 opinion (PDF), the Article 29 Working Party (an independent European advisory body on data protection, formed by representatives of European data protection authorities) held that “a high number of contacts could be an indication that the household exception does not apply and therefore that the user would be considered a data controller”. Conclusion: if you share a photo, name etc. with many people on Facebook, you might be a data controller in the eyes of data protection authorities and would therefore have to proof the lawfulness of the respective data processing operation. Continue reading →
On February 14th, 2013 the Administrative Court of Schleswig held in two decisions that German data protection laws do not apply to data processing by Facebook (file numbers 8 B 60/12 and 8 B 61/1). Continue reading →
Until last year, the right to be forgotten used to be an idea of Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, an Austrian law professor. He suggested – and probably still suggests – providing a “best before date” for data that is electronically saved. After the expiration of the date, the data would be automatically deleted by the application or computer system. Last year, the idea – or a modification thereof – became part of a draft regulation of the European Commission. Continue reading →
Last weekend, an amended draft of the Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) was published by the British organization statewatch. The proposed changes regard Articles 1-10, 80 (a), 83 and several recitals. While some of them simply clarify the first draft, others – as for example the definition of the term “personal data” in Article 4 Subsection 1 – will have great effects on data protection in Germany. Continue reading →
The (Draft) General Data Protection Regulation being a Regulation it not only aims at fully harmonizing the field of law it covers (as some Directives do) but would achieve that goal by simply being the (only) directly applicable law as far as its reach goes. Plus the Commission’s “empowerment to adopt delegated acts”, of course, which is a rather intriguing idea from a democracy point of view. But that’s another story.
One of the very few areas where the member states are given a certain amount of legislative leeway is set forth in Art. 82 of the Draft Regulation. Continue reading →
As we are quickly moving towards Germany’s 1st anniversary of non-compliance with the infamous “EU Cookie Directive“, one would expect the legislator to really make a push to get something on paper, right? Well, not so. In fact, there isn’t even a legislative silver lining anywhere to be seen. We have witnessed one draft of a change to the “Telemedia Act” (the place where any transforming the EU’s wisdom into German law would take place) submitted by the federal state of Hessen last year that no one has really talked much about, and one draft submitted by the current opposition in the Bundestag that has now been rebuffed on committee level without before even getting a proper hearing in parliament – without spoiling us by publishing any reasons for the government’s stance, sadly. That said, that’s all good news, really. Continue reading →
It has been an ongoing (if disrupted) saga since 2010, but it could be that the pending Federal Act on Employee Data Protection (we Germans simply cannot live without regulation on each and every aspect of life) will be finished and pushed through the competent legislative bodies (in 2012 even, as it has been suggested?).
So, what would be new? Well, until now we have been doing with just one, if very abstact, section in the Federal Data Protection Act. Now, we’d enjoy some 13 or so sections, each, not surprisingly, composed of several exhausting paragraphs. Fun for us lawyers, certainly! On the other hand, however, some grey areas (e.g. video surveillance, collecting telecommunications data) would actually be (somewhat) clarified. Yet, the most interesting new development is that, apparently, it would be possible Continue reading →