European Data Protection Reform: Will Further Personal Data Restrictions be Beneficial for Network F

What is the role of personal data in the digital world and can we still remain our privacy in web 2.0 spot? Will the changes in traditional implementation of European data protection law which focus on parameters such as costs and prices, service quality and guarantee for consumers` security become relevant to the contemporary stakeholder practices?

The legislative proposal to reform EU data protection law so to allow better conditions for digital economic expansion, competition and creativeness continues to be a challenging task for analysers, welfare and private agencies. A large and constantly increasing number of countries in all global regions have already approved data protection legislation based on the EU Directive but this act still appears unprofitable for the vast number of Internet companies which develop their marketing strategy based on the familiar rule more data attracts more users who from their side attract more data.

Huge amount of discussions and comments concerning the need of fresh perspective in related realms such as information technology law and public international law occurred but a solution that will be able to satisfy all concerned sides have not prevailed yet. One of the issues regarding the EU data protection reform successful implementation remains technical. Many of web 2.0`s data centric services are two-sided platforms which are identified by network effects: the more users they have, the more users they obtain. This practice inevitably leads to a highly competitive market area where the winner takes all but which at the same time makes the application of essential data protection concepts, such as consent, more difficult.

Will the Reform of EU Data Protection Law Change Something?

The specific aspect of individual control over personal data that is also recognised as an act of informational self-determination becomes deceptive when speaking of a synthesis between private conduct, freedom of expression and marketing competitiveness. As stated in present regulation, the personal data restriction will assure better quality of services and will improve the effectiveness of benefits delivery towards consumers. According to Bert – Jaap Koops (2014) the corrections in law will not give an answer to the present business and institutional obstacles. The researcher points out tree misconceptions which drive the process of web-public interconnection into the wrong direction.

First of all, the data protection law cannot give individuals control over their data due to the fact that informational self-determination is unenforceable. If the law gives a high priority on informational self-determination, this decision will be in contradiction with the nature of public sector based mainly on management, consumption and distribution of benefits. Internet-based services such as Facebook, Google and Twitter seem to limit the public choice but they actually assure a freedom of expression to their users. A potential move from free to paid services is not a condition that most Internet users will prefer to switch to as they are in opinion that Internet primary function is to offer free lunches. Besides, Website visitors voluntarily accept the terms so to receive access. Hence, there is a social awareness that this act of registration does not guarantee data privacy but a free space for trading, self-esteem and creativity.

Another misunderstanding, says Koops, corresponds to the perception of reform and its potential to simplify the law. The current data protection law with its numerous requirements based on forecasts rather than recommendations that will be able to provide actual results leads to inability for both authorities and stakeholders to fulfil the juridical criteria. As long as the law does not assure functional and relevant to the actual world rules and practices, it will continue stay on paper.

The third argument is affiliated to the assumption that data protection law should be comprehensive. This belief extends the process of information security to its crucial point and makes it incoherent. A legalized law does not certainly mean law in action. In our case, the disparity between legislation and actuality challenges the conditions of profiting and liberty of creative performance.

In addition, the prime issue that stands in front all concerned parties is the presumption that data processing has necessarily be bind to personal data in the frame of data protection law. For many experts data protection means data minimisation based on limitation of use and focus on data quality. This interpretation is not a gainful long-term perspective since socio-technological developments already raise new regulatory possibilities to combine, interpret and redirect personal data and meanwhile to be still sensitive to changes in marketing sphere (e.g. the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Kimberly Process and the International Aid Transparency Initiative).

How Protection can become More Effective in Digital World?

Present digital single market requires an evolution from governmental and institutional side. The already established principle of open Internet space allows web 2.0 users to access content, application and services of their choice and promotes competition among network, services and content providers. Data protection reform based on data minimisation and limitation of use will break the Internet integrity and market connectivity which were growing rapidly over the past 20 years and which became a symbol of innovation and creativity for many citizens. This undeniable fact is mainly due to the users` willingness to be engaged in a free market place that provides various opportunities and most of all, liberty of expression.

If we try to define the protection concept not from juridical but communicative standpoint, it can be noticed that this security act is represented by our own ability to assure privacy to ourselves. Though this, it is a question of personal responsibility to keep our identities and feeling of self-determination safe rather than to rely on restriction and penalty measures.

Despite the fact that multi-stakeholders are commonly identified as controversial actors in welfare apparatus, their diversity and ability to combine civil needs with marketing effectiveness can lead to successful outcome. Briefly, their initiatives are frequently turned around deliberative processes (e.g. seek of efficient dialogue, institutional building and monitoring) that have real potential to encourage a transformational change. By guaranteeing clear understanding of customers` expectations related to direct and indirect impacts and reassuring good promotion of standards, the multi-stakeholders can become beneficial participants into the development of practical guidance towards more sufficient implementation of law.

References

Koops, Bert- Jaap. (2014), ‘‘The trouble with European data protection law’’ in International Data Privacy Law (2014) 4 (4): 250-261.

Martinsson, J. ‘’Multistakeholder Initiatives: Are the Effective?’’, The World Bank, May 2011, <http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/multistakeholder-initiatives-are-they-effective?cid=EXT_WBBlogSocialShare_D_EXT> (22.10.2014)

Report of workshop on Privacy, Consumers, Competition and Big Data, 2 June 2014. <https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Big%20data/14-07-11_EDPS_Report_Workshop_Big_data_EN.pdf> (21.10.2014)

#europe #politics