The right to Data portability in the context of the EU data protection reform

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Zanfir
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Portability ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'right to an explanation' is probably not the remedy you are looking for

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilian Edwards ◽  
Michael Veale
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Design Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Law And Technology ◽  
Computer Scientists ◽  
General Data ◽  
Data Portability ◽  
The Right ◽  
War Stories ◽  
The Eu

Cite as Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale, 'Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'right to an explanation' is probably not the remedy you are looking for' (2017) 16 Duke Law and Technology Review 18–84. (First posted on SSRN 24 May 2017)Algorithms, particularly machine learning (ML) algorithms, are increasingly important to individuals’ lives, but have caused a range of concerns revolving mainly around unfairness, discrimination and opacity. Transparency in the form of a “right to an explanation” has emerged as a compellingly attractive remedy since it intuitively promises to “open the black box” to promote challenge, redress, and hopefully heightened accountability. Amidst the general furore over algorithmic bias we describe, any remedy in a storm has looked attractive.However, we argue that a right to an explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is unlikely to present a complete remedy to algorithmic harms, particularly in some of the core “algorithmic war stories” that have shaped recent attitudes in this domain. Firstly, the law is restrictive, unclear, or even paradoxical concerning when any explanation-related right can be triggered. Secondly, even navigating this, the legal conception of explanations as “meaningful information about the logic of processing” may not be provided by the kind of ML “explanations” computer scientists have developed, partially in response. ML explanations are restricted both by the type of explanation sought, the dimensionality of the domain and the type of user seeking an explanation. However, “subject-centric" explanations (SCEs) focussing on particular regions of a model around a query show promise for interactive exploration, as do explanation systems based on learning a model from outside rather than taking it apart (pedagogical vs decompositional explanations ) in dodging developers' worries of IP or trade secrets disclosure.Based on our analysis, we fear that the search for a “right to an explanation” in the GDPR may be at best distracting, and at worst nurture a new kind of “transparency fallacy.” But all is not lost. We argue that other parts of the GDPR related (i) to the right to erasure ("right to be forgotten") and the right to data portability; and (ii) to privacy by design, Data Protection Impact Assessments and certification and privacy seals, may have the seeds we can use to make algorithms more responsible, explicable, and human-centred.

scholarly journals How Has the General Data Protection Regulation Changed the Routine of a Public Authority in Romania?

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Kajcsa Andrea
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
General Data ◽  
Data Portability ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Public Bodies

The changes that have been brought about by the General Data Protection Regulation starting with May 2018 are complex and ambitious. The General Data Protection Regulation is one of the most wide ranging pieces of legislation passed by the EU in recent years, and it introduces many concepts that are yet to be fully discovered in practice, such as the right to be forgotten, data portability and data breach notification. This paper intends to analyze the main obligations that public bodies, particularly, have after the GDPR has entered into force, and to evaluate the impact this legislative act has on the routine activities carried out by public authorities in Romania. To reach our goal, we will make reference to the obligations that are specific to public administration authorities as well as to those that public bodies are exempted from. We will also analyze the national legislative measures adopted in Romania after GDPR started to be in force, and the degree to which these have particularized the way public bodies are allowed and obliged to process personal data in Romania.

scholarly journals A Healthy Sense of Trust

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Denis Horgan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Big Data ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Fast Moving ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Personalised Medicine ◽  
Drug Pricing ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In the fast-moving arena of modern healthcare with its cutting-edge science it is already, and will become more, vital that stakeholders collaborate openly and effectively. Transparency, especially on drug pricing, is of paramount importance. There is also a need to ensure that regulations and legislation covering, for example the new, smaller clinical trials required to make personalised medicine work effectively, and the huge practical and ethical issues surrounding Big Data and data protection, are common, understood and enforced across the EU. With more integration, collaboration, dialogue and increased trust among each and every one in the field, stakeholders can help mould the right frameworks, in the right place, at the right time. Once achieved, this will allow us all to work more quickly and more effectively towards creating a healthier - and thus wealthier - European Union.

scholarly journals Applicable Law to Transnational Personal Data: Trends and Dynamics

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1283-1308
Author(s):  
Jie (Jeanne) Huang
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Chinese Media ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Regional Coordination ◽  
The Law ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe recent COVID-19 outbreak has pushed the tension of protecting personal data in a transnational context to an apex. Using a real case where the personal data of an international traveler was illegally released by Chinese media, this Article identifies three trends that have emerged at each stage of conflict-of-laws analysis for lex causae: (1) The EU, the US, and China characterize the right to personal data differently; (2) the spread-out unilateral applicable law approach comes from the fact that all three jurisdictions either consider the law for personal data protection as a mandatory law or adopt connecting factors leading to the law of the forum; and (3) the EU and China strongly advocate deAmericanization of substantive data protection laws. The trends and their dynamics provide valuable implications for developing the choice of laws for transnational personal data. First, this finding informs parties that jurisdiction is a predominant issue in data breach cases because courts and regulators would apply the law of the forum. Second, currently, there is no international treaty or model law on choice-of-law issues for transnational personal data. International harmonization efforts will be a long and difficult journey considering how the trends demonstrate not only the states’ irreconcilable interests but also how states may consider these interests as their fundamental values that they do not want to trade off. Therefore, for states and international organizations, a feasible priority is to achieve regional coordination or interoperation among states with similar values on personal data protection.

The Right To Be Forgotten

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to be forgotten is an emerging legal concept allowing individuals control over their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain results. The right has been supported by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries, among others. The right is primarily grounded in notions of privacy and data protection but also relates to intellectual property, reputation, and right of publicity. Scholars and courts cite, as an intellectual if not legal root for the right to be forgotten, the legal principle that convicted criminals whose sentences are completed should not continually be publicly linked with their crimes. Critics contend that the right to be forgotten stands in conflict with freedom of expression and can lead to revisionist history. Scholars and others in the southern cone of South America, in particular, have decried the right to be forgotten because it could allow perpetrators of mass human rights abuses to cover up or obscure their atrocities. On the other hand, those in favor of the right to be forgotten say that digital technology preserves memory unnaturally and can impede forgiveness and individual progress. The right to be forgotten debate is far from resolved and poses difficult questions about access to, and control of, large amounts of digital information across national borders. Given the global nature of the Internet and the ubiquity of certain powerful search engines, the questions at issue are universal, but solutions thus far have been piecemeal. Although a 2014 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) garnered much attention, the right to be forgotten has been largely shaped by a 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. In 2016, the EU adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation that will take effect in 2018 and could have a major impact because it contains an explicit right to be forgotten (also called right to erasure). The new regulation does not focus on the theoretical or philosophical justification for a right to be forgotten, and it appears likely the debate over the right in the EU and beyond will not be resolved even when the new rule takes effect.

Oblivion Is Full of Memory

2021 ◽  
pp. 441-465
Author(s):  
Anabelen Casares Marcos
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The Internet ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to informational self-determination has raised bitter debate over the last decade as to the opportunity and possible scope of the right to demand withdrawal from the internet of personal information which, while true, might represent a detriment that there is no legal duty to put up with. The leading case in this topic is that of Mario Costeja, Judgment of the EU Court of Justice, May 13, 2014. The interest of recent European jurisprudence lies not so much in the recognition of such a right but in the appreciation of certain limits to its implementation, assisting data protection authorities in balancing the rights at stake in each case. Reflection on the current status of the issue considers rights and duties imposed in the matter by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, of 27 April, known as the new General Data Protection Regulation.

Data Portability as a Data Subject Right

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-188
Author(s):  
Helena U. Vrabec
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Narrow Scope ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Data Portability ◽  
The Right ◽  
Data Subject

Chapter 7 analyses the right to data portability set out in Article 20 of the GDPR. It first provides an overview of several commercial and regulatory initiatives that preceded the GDPR version of the right to personal data portability. Next, it explores the language of Article 20 to demonstrate the effects of the narrow scope of the right. The chapter then shows how data portability interacts with other data subject rights, particularly with the right to access and the right to be forgotten, before it describes manifestations of data portability in legal areas outside of the data protection law. Finally, the chapter explores the specific objective of the right to data portability under the GDPR as an enabler of data subjects’ control.

Personal Data and Contract Law: Challenges and Concerns about the Economic Exploitation of the Right to Data Protection

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-392
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Versaci
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Economic Exploitation ◽  
Digital Business Models ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The so-called ‘free’ digital business models – users are not requested to pay a price, but to disclose personal data – are a very common reality. To tackle this phenomenon, the European Commission’s proposal of Directive on contracts for the supply of digital content used the concept of personal data as counter-performance. This stance proved to be quite problematic. It has been opposed by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) arguing that it should not be possible to subject the fundamental right to data protection to a commercial transaction. This article dwells upon the economic exploitability of the right to data protection, showing that Article 8 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights and the related case law of the CJEU do not justify the concerns raised by the EDPS. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the legal traditions of the EU Member States recognize that personality rights can be the object of a contract, although they limit to a certain extent the private autonomy of the parties. Thus, the commodification of personal data – like the commodification of other incorporeal attributes of personality – is not banned. Rather, there is now a policy issue about how to handle the risk of personalized discrimination and the problem of inequality of bargaining power in digital business models based on personal data. In this respect, political decisions should not be too affected by conceptual barriers between data protection law and contract law. In line with this position, the author argues that the economic exploitation of the right to data protection should not be considered a waiver of the same right.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document