Advertisement

May 22, 2013

The Information Commissioner’s Office Publishes Briefing on Future of Data Protection in The European Union

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published a briefing on the future of data protection in the European Union, setting out the ICO’s views on the scope and expected content of the new EU data protection legal framework. The briefing outlines what the ICO would like to see in future legislation.

BACKGROUND

The Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the Directive), regulates the processing of personal data in the European Union. Since its implementation, technological developments have changed the landscape in which the Directive operates, resulting in questions over its fitness for purpose. In November 2010, the European Commission published a communication entitled “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union”, which sets out the Commission’s concerns over whether the Directive, in its current form, could bear the strain of technological change. The communication stimulated debate over the scope and content of a revised Directive, with EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding calling for an overhaul of the current regime. The briefing is the latest contribution to that debate.

SCOPE

The briefing states that an effective new data protection framework must be “overarching, clear in scope and easy to understand and apply, consisting of high-level principles with the detail in implementing measures, codes of practice and other mechanisms.”  In addition, the framework should place responsibility on, and require accountability from, those processing personal data throughout the information life cycle. This includes applying obligations directly to data processors.

Equally, there should be clearly defined exemptions for domestic purposes and journalism, taking account of changes such as social networking sites and blogs.

RIGHTS

The framework should strengthen an individual’s right to object to and block processing and to have their data deleted, and reverse the burden of proof so the organisation has to provide compelling grounds for continuing to process the data. The ICO suggests that the Commission should not introduce a stand-alone “right to be forgotten” since, in its view, this could “mislead individuals and falsely raise their expectations, and be impossible to implement and enforce in practice”. However, it should be easier for individuals to exercise their rights by using technology to provide subject access and giving individuals the ability to move their data around and have it in a reusable format.

OBLIGATIONS

The ICO wants the new framework to be less prescriptive in terms of the processes organisations are expected to adopt, but clearer in terms of the standards they are expected to reach. Organisations should carry out a privacy impact assessment where processing has, or could have, a significant or adverse impact on the individual, or where the purpose of the processing creates a particular risk. The briefing acknowledges that “any explicit provisions to compel privacy by design would be difficult to implement and enforce in practice”.

Information provided to regulators by organisations should be “meaningful” and “demonstrate compliance and accountability”. In the first instance, assessing the adequacy for international transfers of data should be the responsibility of the organisation, not data protection authorities.

DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES

The ICO insists that data protection authorities should supervise, enforce, advise, and not give prior approval or authorisation to organisations’ activities. Furthermore, the authorities should have powers to take action against any organisation, regardless of the role the authorities take in the stewardship of the personal data. These powers should include the ability to audit all organisations. In addition, authorities should cooperate and share information with each other, but “remain independent”.

COMMENT

The Commission’s principal objectives regarding revision of the Directive were to strengthen individuals’ rights, revise data protection rules in the area of police and criminal justice, ensure high levels of protection for data transferred outside the European Union, and provide more effective enforcement of the rules. The ICO is broadly in agreement with the Commission’s objectives, but differs in some respects over how they should be achieved.

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Rohan Massey is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP, based in its London office.  He focuses his practice on media, e-commerce, outsourcing, IT and data protection.  As well as advising on intellectual property issues arising in corporate transactions, Rohan specialises in media and marketing, advising on a wide range of sponsorship, advertising, sales promotions, clinical trials and intellectual property issues.  His client base is international in scope, as he works extensively across Europe and has been based in our LA office. ...

44-20-7577-6929

Contributors

Partner

Hiroshi Sheraton is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery based in the London office. He focuses his practice on all aspects of intellectual property law with a particular emphasis on the life sciences sector.

44-20-7577-6910

About the Author

Partner

Dr. Vincent Schröder is partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater LLP, based in its Munich office. He is a member of the German telecom, media and technology (TMT) practice group.

49-89-12712-151

About the Author

Partner

Dr. Boris Uphoff is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater LLP based in its Munich office.   He is a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group, where his practice focuses on trade marks, unfair competition, copyright, design rights and patents.  His work in these areas, mostly contentious, has included representing plaintiffs and defendants in infringement suits before all major commercial courts in Germany. 

49-89-12712-181

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.