News and Research articles on Data protectionEurope’s pending General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) threatens free expression and access to information on the internet, argues scholar Daphne Keller in the last of six posts.
Fifth of a series of posts about the pending EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its consequences for intermediaries and user speech online.
As the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation seems to approach fast, the Court of Justice of the European Union firmly asserts the fundamental rights dimension of EU personal data protection law.
Fourth of a series of posts about the pending EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its consequences for intermediaries and user speech online.
This is the third of a series of posts about the pending EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and its consequences for intermediaries and user speech online.
Europe could become the world’s leading trusted cloud region, says cloud computing researcher Kristina Irion. This is why.
First of a series of posts about the pending EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and its consequences for intermediaries and user speech online.
The Safe Harbour Agreement between the EU and the US has been under fire for years. A landmark judgement by the European Court of Justice on 6 October not only invalidates the agreement. It boomerangs back to Europe in big ways.
This article examines the stance of the European Union vis-à-vis internet services company Google in two controversial instances: the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the implementation of EU competition rules.
Privacy means control over our personal data... and human rights lawyer Katarzyna Szymielewicz explains why this matters when it comes to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation.
Revenge porn is an increasingly pervasive and troubling abuse of privacy in the networked information society. Some victims are fighting back using copyright law. But does it work?
As negotiations progress over the EU-US free-trade agreement TTIP, it is natural that somebody will propose addressing privacy differences through trade. But several features of free trade agreements make negotiating data protection in the trade regime a very bad idea for the EU.
In the past 12 months privacy and data protection took a much more prominent role in internet policy discussions. One of the key examples is the so-called Google Spain case. Researcher Jef Ausloos revisits the case at the European privacy conference CPDP.
The European Data Governance Forum taking place this week galvanised two core ethical principles, reports Francesca Musiani.
Despite all claims that German intelligence agencies operate on constitutional grounds, government representatives fail on transparency. We need to seriously care, argues Marcel Dickow.
You are unclear about what Facebook will be doing with your data in the new year? Read Anne Helmond's quick analysis of Facebook's new terms and policies in effect 1 January 2015.
The so-called right to be forgotten needs to be discussed a little more. Google has received 70,000 requests for takedowns of search results since the decision of the European Court of Justice in May 2014. Now the company gets support from an unexpected place: a German constitutional judge warns against potential dangers of the decision.
An expert working group has presented the concept of a new system of “registration directory services”. The plan is to store personal information of domain name registrants centrally – much to the dissent of privacy advocates.
In a recent high-profile court case on data protection and freedom of expression, the European Court of Justice has forgotten that publicness needs to be protected from privatisation, argues Lorena Jaume-Palasi.
The European Union’s Court of Justice has ruled against Google in a case in which a Spanish citizen, backed by his national data protection authority, wanted the company to remove search links to an old local newspaper story related to his bankruptcy. Jef Ausloos argues that implications should not be too extreme, but warns of the Court’s prioritising of data subjects over internet users.