facebook rss twitter

EU data protection revamp to be proposed Wednesday

by Alistair Lowe on 24 January 2012, 10:16

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qabbpz

Add to My Vault: x

Originating in 1984 and seeing several revisions over the years to consolidate new Acts and EU law, the Data Protection Act forms the legal foundation of what information firms can and can't store in relation to a person and how they can handle that information.

Currently the act sets the following core principals:

 

  • Firms may not store data other than for a specific purpose.
  • Firms may not pass data along to a third party without consent.
  • Individuals have the right to request what data is held about them (with exceptions such as data that may prevent a crime).
  • Personal information may not be stored for longer than necessary and must be kept up to date.
  • Personal information may not be sent outside the EU without consent or adequate protection.
  • Larger organisations with complex data processing must register with the Information Commissioner's office.
  • Company departments must have adequate security in place (both actual and organisational).
  • Subjects have the right to have factually incorrect information corrected.
For example, these principals and requirements prevent firms from passing your information along to advertising and marketing firms without consent and should ensure that your personal information is only kept as long as there is a need i.e. as long as you have an account with X company.

Tomorrow, the EU is to propose a new change to its data protection directives, which were formed in 1995 and further enhanced by directives such as the Privacy and Electronic Communications directive formed in 2003. The new directive would enable internet users to request that firms delete data about themselves unless there are "legitimate" grounds to retain it. This proposal was apparently brought about by the wish to help teenagers and young adults manage their online reputations, "These rules are particularly aimed at young people as they are not always as aware as they could be about the consequence of putting photos and other information on social network websites, or about the various privacy settings available," stated an EU spokesman.

If one were to take a gander at the above list, you would note that the right to data removal already exists, however, in its current form it is limited and but a principal, the new law intends to make the removal of data "a right".

Other changes forming part of tomorrow's proposed directive are the requirement for firms to notify users and authorities of data loss through hacking or other breaches as soon as possible, with a suggestion that under normal circumstances, this would mean within 24 hours. The new directive would also require firms to never assume consent to use data and must explicitly seek permission; with any luck, gone are the days of having to un-tick that check-box when registering a new account on the internet. Much like recent UK law, websites would be required to inform users of when and why data is being collected, for example in the form of cookies.

Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, did state that there would be reasonable exceptions to the "right to be forgotten", citing the removal of information from newspaper archives as an example where the right would be inappropriate, "It is clear that the right to be forgotten cannot amount to a right of the total erasure of history," she stated.

These new rules look to cover all EU member states for the first time, seeing firms who violate the provisions set out in the directive opening themselves up to a fine of up to one per cent of their global revenue.

We think it's great that the EU is taking a modern stance on data protection, we wonder what our readers think and if perhaps the EU may have left anything important off its list?

 



HEXUS Forums :: 5 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Hallelujah, Amen, Whoopee and About Flaming Time.

The devil, however, is always in the detail.

For instance …. the exception of
“legitimate” grounds to retain it
requires “legitimate” to be defined. It's like “reasonable” - it's very subjective.

All told, it looks like a step in the right direction, and possibly a substantial one, if and when it comes into effect, and if it doesn't get watered down first. I especially like the “right” to forget, and the apparent elimination of opt-out tick-boxes. If companies genuinely want to to something that should require our consent, actively seek it rather than assuming you've got it unless we notice and opt-out.
And then there's the one rule for joe public, and another for the authoritarians:
Individuals have the right to request what data is held about them (with exceptions such as data that may prevent a crime).

I wonder how many more of those are in the small print.
aidanjt
And then there's the one rule for joe public, and another for the authoritarians:


I wonder how many more of those are in the small print.
Well, that exception and a few others have been in the DPA since the start. The existing exceptions are fairly few, but fairly deep. For instance, you can justify a lot by labelling it “national security”, especially when the fact that it's about “national security” also means you can't explain why you can't release it.

But that's the cynic's viewpoint. The other, of course, is that there are issues that can't be discussed for national security reasons that are, genuinely, to the benefit of us all, and I guess, ditto “prevention of crime”.

The problem, as always, is that something that can be a damn good genuine reason can also be used as a superb excuse for hiding the inexcusable.
Good, however i find that not all support people understand this law (to a reasonable level) so it can be a bit annoying, for instance i bought a pair of speakers from dixons which were about Ā£200 cheaper than elsewhere and eventually they cancelled all orders, fair enough but i wanted to be removed from their databases as i dont shop there… after emailing support a few times they ended up removing me from the mail list instead of deleting said account.

I dont have time to ring up companies so i couldnt be bothered to sort it out and gave up. Hopefully this sorts it :)
This looks like a very good move for us. Two I like in that you can't pass information out of the EU and clearly spelling out not to pass onto third parties.

But will they word the tick boxes cleverly just as they do now. It would be good to see a clause to have a standard message to include yourself into and not out of. Also having the ability to select a language the statement are in would be highly useful.