Challenged by news personalisation: five perspectives on the right to receive information external link

Eskens, S., Helberger, N. & Möller, J.
Journal of Media Law, vol. 9, num: 2, pp: 259-284, 2017

Abstract

This research asks what the right to receive information means for personalised news consumers and the obligations this rights imposes on states. We develop a framework to understand the right to receive information, starting from case law of the European Court of Human Rights. On this basis, we identify five perspectives on the right to receive information: political debate, truth finding, social cohesion, avoidance of censorship and self-development. We evaluate how these five perspectives inform a legal and policy analysis of news personalisation.

European Convention on Human Rights, filter bubbles, frontpage, media diversity, Media law, news personalisation, right to receive information

Bibtex

Article{Eskens2017, title = {Challenged by news personalisation: five perspectives on the right to receive information}, author = {Eskens, S. and Helberger, N. and Möller, J.}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2017.1387353}, year = {1107}, date = {2017-11-07}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, volume = {9}, number = {2}, pages = {259-284}, abstract = {This research asks what the right to receive information means for personalised news consumers and the obligations this rights imposes on states. We develop a framework to understand the right to receive information, starting from case law of the European Court of Human Rights. On this basis, we identify five perspectives on the right to receive information: political debate, truth finding, social cohesion, avoidance of censorship and self-development. We evaluate how these five perspectives inform a legal and policy analysis of news personalisation.}, keywords = {European Convention on Human Rights, filter bubbles, frontpage, media diversity, Media law, news personalisation, right to receive information}, }

Referendum ‘sleepnetwet’ voorbode digitale perikelen Rutte III: D66 zal achterban herhaaldelijk moeten teleurstellen rond digitale dossiers external link

Het Financieele Dagblad, vol. 2017, 2017

frontpage, politiek, Privacy, referendum, sleepnet, Telecommunicatierecht

Bibtex

Article{Arnbak2017b, title = {Referendum ‘sleepnetwet’ voorbode digitale perikelen Rutte III: D66 zal achterban herhaaldelijk moeten teleurstellen rond digitale dossiers}, author = {Arnbak, A.}, url = {https://axelarnbak.nl/2017/11/02/41e-fd-column-referendum-sleepwet-voorbode-digitale-perikelen-rutte-iii/}, year = {1102}, date = {2017-11-02}, journal = {Het Financieele Dagblad}, volume = {2017}, pages = {}, keywords = {frontpage, politiek, Privacy, referendum, sleepnet, Telecommunicatierecht}, }

AG Szpunar on VCAST: Copyright and the Cloud external link

Quintais, J. & Rendas, T.
2017

Abstract

On 7 September 2017, AG Szpunar delivered his opinion on Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case concerns the question of whether the private copying exception covers the services of an online platform that allows users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. AG Szpunar’s proposed answer was a mixed one: while cloud copying, in general, should be considered covered by the exception, the specific service offered by VCAST should not.

Case notes, Copyright, frontpage, online platform, private copying exception

Bibtex

Online publication{Quintais2017b, title = {AG Szpunar on VCAST: Copyright and the Cloud}, author = {Quintais, J. and Rendas, T.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/10/09/ag-szpunar-vcast-copyright-cloud/}, year = {1009}, date = {2017-10-09}, abstract = {On 7 September 2017, AG Szpunar delivered his opinion on Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case concerns the question of whether the private copying exception covers the services of an online platform that allows users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. AG Szpunar’s proposed answer was a mixed one: while cloud copying, in general, should be considered covered by the exception, the specific service offered by VCAST should not.}, keywords = {Case notes, Copyright, frontpage, online platform, private copying exception}, }

Tracking walls, take-it-or-leave-it choices, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy regulation external link

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Kruikemeier, S., Boerman, S.C. & Helberger, N.
European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 2017, num: 3, pp: 353-368, 2017

Abstract

On the internet, we encounter take-it-or-leave-it choices regarding our privacy on a daily basis. In Europe, online tracking for targeted advertising generally requires the internet users’ consent to be lawful. Some websites use a tracking wall, a barrier that visitors can only pass if they consent to tracking by third parties. When confronted with such a tracking wall, many people click ‘I agree’ to tracking. A survey that we conducted shows that most people find tracking walls unfair and unacceptable. We analyse under which conditions the ePrivacy Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation allow tracking walls. We provide a list of circumstances to assess when a tracking wall makes consent invalid. We also explore how the EU lawmaker could regulate tracking walls, for instance in the ePrivacy Regulation. It should be seriously considered to ban tracking walls, at least in certain circumstances.

europe, frontpage, GDPR, Privacy, tracking walls

Bibtex

Article{Borgesius2017b, title = {Tracking walls, take-it-or-leave-it choices, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy regulation}, author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Kruikemeier, S. and Boerman, S.C. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EDPL_2017_03.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2017/3/9}, year = {1019}, date = {2017-10-19}, journal = {European Data Protection Law Review}, volume = {2017}, number = {3}, pages = {353-368}, abstract = {On the internet, we encounter take-it-or-leave-it choices regarding our privacy on a daily basis. In Europe, online tracking for targeted advertising generally requires the internet users’ consent to be lawful. Some websites use a tracking wall, a barrier that visitors can only pass if they consent to tracking by third parties. When confronted with such a tracking wall, many people click ‘I agree’ to tracking. A survey that we conducted shows that most people find tracking walls unfair and unacceptable. We analyse under which conditions the ePrivacy Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation allow tracking walls. We provide a list of circumstances to assess when a tracking wall makes consent invalid. We also explore how the EU lawmaker could regulate tracking walls, for instance in the ePrivacy Regulation. It should be seriously considered to ban tracking walls, at least in certain circumstances.}, keywords = {europe, frontpage, GDPR, Privacy, tracking walls}, }

Unfair Commercial Practices: A Complementary Approach to Privacy Protection external link

van Eijk, N., Hoofnagle, C.J. & Kannekens, E.
European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 2017, num: 3, pp: 325-337, 2017

Abstract

Millions of European internet users access online platforms where their personal data is being collected, processed, analysed or sold. The existence of some of the largest online platforms is entirely based on data driven business models. In the European Union, the protection of personal data is considered a fundamental right. Under Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, compliance with data protection rules should be subject to control by an independent authority. In the EU, enforcement of privacy rules almost solely takes place by the national data protection authorities. They typically apply sector-specific rules, based on the EU Data Protection Directive. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is the primary enforcer of consumers’ (online) privacy interests. The agency’s competence is not based on the protection of fundamental rights, but on the basis that maintenance of a competitive, fair marketplace will provide the right choices for consumers to take. In this Article the US legal framework will be discussed and compared to the EU legal framework, which forms our finding that in the EU rules on unfair commercial practices could be enforced in a similar manner to protect people’s privacy. In the EU, the many frictions concerning the market/consumer-oriented use of personal data form a good reason to actually deal with these frictions in a market/consumer legal framework.

frontpage, Fundamental rights, Online platforms, Personal data, Privacy, unfair commercial practices

Bibtex

Article{vanEijk2017b, title = {Unfair Commercial Practices: A Complementary Approach to Privacy Protection}, author = {van Eijk, N. and Hoofnagle, C.J. and Kannekens, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/edpl_2017_03.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2017/3/7}, year = {1019}, date = {2017-10-19}, journal = {European Data Protection Law Review}, volume = {2017}, number = {3}, pages = {325-337}, abstract = {Millions of European internet users access online platforms where their personal data is being collected, processed, analysed or sold. The existence of some of the largest online platforms is entirely based on data driven business models. In the European Union, the protection of personal data is considered a fundamental right. Under Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, compliance with data protection rules should be subject to control by an independent authority. In the EU, enforcement of privacy rules almost solely takes place by the national data protection authorities. They typically apply sector-specific rules, based on the EU Data Protection Directive. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is the primary enforcer of consumers’ (online) privacy interests. The agency’s competence is not based on the protection of fundamental rights, but on the basis that maintenance of a competitive, fair marketplace will provide the right choices for consumers to take. In this Article the US legal framework will be discussed and compared to the EU legal framework, which forms our finding that in the EU rules on unfair commercial practices could be enforced in a similar manner to protect people’s privacy. In the EU, the many frictions concerning the market/consumer-oriented use of personal data form a good reason to actually deal with these frictions in a market/consumer legal framework.}, keywords = {frontpage, Fundamental rights, Online platforms, Personal data, Privacy, unfair commercial practices}, }

About finding practical solutions (without the GDPR) external link

European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 2017, num: 3, pp: 310-312, 2017

frontpage, GDPR, Privacy, privacy bridges

Bibtex

Article{vanEijk2017b, title = {About finding practical solutions (without the GDPR)}, author = {van Eijk, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/edpl_2017_03_foreword.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2017/3/5}, year = {1019}, date = {2017-10-19}, journal = {European Data Protection Law Review}, volume = {2017}, number = {3}, pages = {310-312}, keywords = {frontpage, GDPR, Privacy, privacy bridges}, }

The proposed publishers’ right in press publications: an evidential mistake external link

van Gompel, S.
2017

Copyright, frontpage, press, publishers' right

Bibtex

Article{vanGompel2017b, title = {The proposed publishers’ right in press publications: an evidential mistake}, author = {van Gompel, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Publishers-right_SvG.pdf}, year = {1012}, date = {2017-10-12}, keywords = {Copyright, frontpage, press, publishers' right}, }

Over wetgeving, implementatie en beleid – Kroniek van het auteursrecht in Nederland 2010-2016 external link

van Gompel, S.
Auteurs & Media, vol. 2016, num: 3, pp: 250-258, 2017

Abstract

Het is alweer zes jaar geleden dat de laatste kroniek over het Nederlands auteursrecht in Auteurs & Media is gepubliceerd(1). Hoog tijd dus om de draad op te pakken en de stok van mijn illustere voorganger over te nemen. Deze kroniek bespreekt de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen op het gebied van auteursrechtwetgeving en -beleid in Nederland in de afgelopen zes jaren, waaronder de introductie van het auteurscontractenrecht, de afschaffing van geschriftenbescherming, de versterking van het toezicht op collectieve beheersorganisaties en de implementatie van de Richtlijnen 2012/28/EU (verweesde werken) en 2011/77/EU (verlenging beschermingsduur naburige rechten). Door deze nieuwe wetgeving is de Nederlandse Auteurswet (Aw) en Wet op de naburige rechten (Wnr) op diverse plaatsen aangepast.

Auteursrecht, beleid, frontpage, kroniek, wetgeving

Bibtex

Article{vanGompel2017b, title = {Over wetgeving, implementatie en beleid – Kroniek van het auteursrecht in Nederland 2010-2016}, author = {van Gompel, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AuteursMedia_2016_3.pdf}, year = {1010}, date = {2017-10-10}, journal = {Auteurs & Media}, volume = {2016}, number = {3}, pages = {250-258}, abstract = {Het is alweer zes jaar geleden dat de laatste kroniek over het Nederlands auteursrecht in Auteurs & Media is gepubliceerd(1). Hoog tijd dus om de draad op te pakken en de stok van mijn illustere voorganger over te nemen. Deze kroniek bespreekt de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen op het gebied van auteursrechtwetgeving en -beleid in Nederland in de afgelopen zes jaren, waaronder de introductie van het auteurscontractenrecht, de afschaffing van geschriftenbescherming, de versterking van het toezicht op collectieve beheersorganisaties en de implementatie van de Richtlijnen 2012/28/EU (verweesde werken) en 2011/77/EU (verlenging beschermingsduur naburige rechten). Door deze nieuwe wetgeving is de Nederlandse Auteurswet (Aw) en Wet op de naburige rechten (Wnr) op diverse plaatsen aangepast.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, beleid, frontpage, kroniek, wetgeving}, }

Report of the Netherlands for ALAI 2017 Study Days (Copenhagen) external link

van Gompel, S. & Schaik, R. van
2017

Auteursrecht, frontpage

Bibtex

Report{Gompel2017b, title = {Report of the Netherlands for ALAI 2017 Study Days (Copenhagen)}, author = {van Gompel, S. and Schaik, R. van}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/ReportoftheNetherlands_ALAI_2017.pdf}, year = {1010}, date = {2017-10-10}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, frontpage}, }

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 1 maart 2017 (ITV / TVCatchup II) external link

van Gompel, S.
AMI, vol. 2017, num: 3, pp: 135-137, 2017

Auteursrecht, frontpage, omroep, toegang tot de kabel

Bibtex

Article{Gompel2017, title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 1 maart 2017 (ITV / TVCatchup II)}, author = {van Gompel, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2017_3.pdf}, year = {1010}, date = {2017-10-10}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2017}, number = {3}, pages = {135-137}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, frontpage, omroep, toegang tot de kabel}, }