This new report, “Data Retention Revisited,” published by the EDRi, critically revisits the question of data retention and concludes that the ongoing aspirations to reintroduce a data retention obligation in the EU remain in violation of EU law as long as the strict necessity of data retention is unproved and no genuinely targeted retention obligation is considered.
According to the recently published EDPB guidelines on the targeting of social media users, the term “targeter” is used to designate natural or legal persons that use social media services in order to direct specific messages at a set of social media users on the basis of specific parameters or criteria. What sets targeters apart from other social media users is that they select their messages and/or their intended audience according to the perceived characteristics, interests, or preferences of the individuals concerned, a practice which is sometimes also referred to as “micro-targeting.” Targeters can engage in targeting to advance commercial, political, or other interests.
As highlighted in NIST Special Publication 800-207, no enterprise can eliminate cybersecurity risk. However, when complemented with existing cybersecurity policies and guidance, identity and access management, continuous monitoring, and general cyber hygiene, a properly implemented and maintained Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) can reduce overall risk and protect against common threats.
Following the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-311/18 – Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has adopted a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ document to provide initial clarification and give preliminary guidance to stakeholders on the use of legal instruments for the transfer of personal data to third countries, including the U.S.
According to the Court of Justice of the European Union press announcement, in the view of the Court, the limitations on the protection of personal data arising from the domestic law of the United States on the access and use by US public authorities of such data transferred from the European Union to that third country, which the Commission assessed in Decision 2016/1250, are not circumscribed in a way that satisfies requirements that are essentially equivalent to those required under EU law, by the principle of proportionality, in so far as the surveillance programmes based on those provisions are not limited to what is strictly necessary.
The general view is that two years after it started to apply, the GDPR has successfully met its objectives of strengthening the protection of the individual’s right to personal data protection and guaranteeing the free flow of personal data within the EU. However, a number of areas for future improvement have also been identified.
The purpose of this two-year assessment is to provide a wider-angled lens through which to assess the work of the Data Protection Commission (DPC) since the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); in particular, to examine wider datasets and annual trends to see what patterns can be identified.
According to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) in his recent opinion on the European Data Strategy, the predominant business model of the digital economy is characterized by an unprecedented concentration of data in the hands of a handful of powerful players, based outside the EU, and wide-scale pervasive tracking. The EDPS goes on to share that he strongly believes that one of the most important objectives of the European Data Strategy should be to prove the viability and sustainability of an alternative data economy model – open, fair, and democratic.
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) is an independent European body that contributes to the consistent application of data protection rules throughout the European Union and promotes cooperation between the EU’s data protection authorities. The following update shares an overview of recent EDPB guidance on the concept of consent under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The recently published research paper “Estimating the Success of Re-identifications in Incomplete Datasets Using Generative Models” shows how the likelihood of a specific individual to have been correctly re-identified can be estimated with high accuracy even when an anonymized dataset is heavily incomplete. The presented results reject the claims that, first, re-identification is not a practical risk and, second, sampling or releasing partial datasets provide plausible deniability. Moving forward, the results also question whether current de-identification practices satisfy the anonymization standards of modern data protection laws such as GDPR and CCPA and emphasize the need to move, from a legal and regulatory perspective, beyond the de-identification release-and-forget model.