Grondrechten, Privacy
Other{nokey,
title = {Introduction: Exploring the Boundaries of Big Data},
author = {Broeders, D. and Schrijvers, E. and van der Sloot, B.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1763},
year = {0512},
date = {2016-05-12},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy},
} Grondrechten, Privacy
Other{nokey,
title = {The Individual in the Big Data Era: Moving towards an Agent-Based Privacy Paradigm},
author = {van der Sloot, B.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1762},
year = {0512},
date = {2016-05-12},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy},
} Grondrechten, Privacy
Other{nokey,
title = {Onno Hoes vs. PowNed: ook een burgemeester heeft recht op privacy},
author = {Hins, A.},
url = {http://jnmblog.nl/articles/onno-hoes-vs.-powned-ook-een-burgemeester-heeft-recht-op-privacy},
year = {0820},
date = {2015-08-20},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy},
} Data protection, Directive 95/46/EC, General Data Protection Regulation, Grondrechten, Internet of Things, Privacy, profiling
Other{nokey,
title = {Profiling the European Citizen in the Internet of Things: How Will the General Data Protection Regulation Apply to this Form of Personal Data Processing, and How Should It?},
author = {Eskens, S.},
url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2752010},
year = {0329},
date = {2016-03-29},
keywords = {Data protection, Directive 95/46/EC, General Data Protection Regulation, Grondrechten, Internet of Things, Privacy, profiling},
} frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy
Report{nokey,
title = {Smart TV and data protection – Introduction},
author = {van Eijk, N. and Irion, K. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1742.pdf},
year = {0310},
date = {2016-03-10},
abstract = {The structure of this study is built around the following questions:
- What is smart TV?
- How does smart TV compare with other forms of audiovisual media?
- What regulatory frameworks govern smart TV?
- What guidance can be found in selected country-specific case studies?
- What are the dangers associated with the collection, storage and processing of private user information by commercial parties?
- How are relevant regulatory frameworks likely to evolve?
Samsung have warned owners of their smart TVs that the system’s voice recognition could actually be recording and sharing their private conversations. This “bad buzz” comes at a time when Brussels is in the process of adopting new legislation – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - aimed at protecting us from abuse and misuse of our private data and consumer behaviour big data collected by smart equipment such as television sets. The European Audiovisual Observatory, part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, is keeping track of these developments and has published this IRIS Special report entitled "Smart TV and data protection".
This is a joint publication by the Observatory and partner institution, the Dutch Institute for Information Law (IViR in Amsterdam). It inspired an expert workshop organised in Strasbourg December 2015, which looked at “the grey areas between media regulation and data protection”.},
keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy},
} frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy
Article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 22 januari 2015 (Allposters / Pictoright)},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1735.pdf},
year = {0225},
date = {2016-02-25},
journal = {AMI},
number = {6},
abstract = {Overbrenging van de afbeelding van een beschermd werk van een papieren poster op canvas valt onder het distributierecht van art. 4 Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG. Poortvliet-doctrine. Geen sprake van uitputting als drager is vervangen. Beloning voor distributie moet in een redelijke verhouding staan tot de economische waarde van de exploitatie van het beschermde voorwerp. Auteursrechtrichtlijn harmoniseert niet het recht van bewerking.},
keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy},
} frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy
Chapter{nokey,
title = {A special regard: The Court of Justice and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection},
author = {Irion, K.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/irion_a-special-regard_chapterfinal/},
year = {0225},
date = {2016-02-25},
abstract = {The frequency with which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretations of the rights to privacy and data protection in European Union (EU) law is constantly accelerating. The increasing case-load can certainly be attributed to the contemporary relevance of these issues in a data-driven society which leads to more cases being referred to the CJEU. However, contrary to earlier case-law, which had a rather limited effect, the recent CJEU decisions have gained prominence for their principle contribution to EU law. In 2014, the Court issued a landmark ruling in the case <em>Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources</em> which catapulted EU citizens’ privacy and data protection rights from the margins of EU law to the center stage. Already in 2015, in the case <em>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</em>, the Court has had another occasion to review EU legislation for its compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection under the EU Charter. The invalidation of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour agreement by the Court has been stirring a global resonance in addition to receiving ample and arguably controversial coverage in international news.
This contribution looks at how the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection are protected in the EU legal order. It primarily assesses the CJEU’s case-law’s trajectory in this field as well as the impact of its decision practice in EU law. Hereby I discuss whether the CJEU holds a particular regard for the rights to privacy and data protection since the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) was accorded binding legal value in 2009.5 Particular focus is given to the discussion of the two judgments in 2014 and 2015 cited above with which the Court underscored its determination to effectively protect these fundamental rights in the scope of EU law.},
keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy},
} Grondrechten, Privacy
Other{nokey,
title = {EHRM geeft voorrang aan bescherming van persoonsgegevens},
author = {Hins, A.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1731.pdf},
year = {0225},
date = {2016-02-25},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {1},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy},
} behavioural targeting, cookies, Data protection law, IP addresses, online behavioural advertising, Personal data, Privacy, profiling, pseudonymous data, tracking
Article{nokey,
title = {Singling out people without knowing their names – Behavioural targeting, pseudonymous data, and the new data protection regulation},
author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.},
url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733115},
year = {0223},
date = {2016-02-23},
journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
number = {2},
abstract = {Information about millions of people is collected for behavioural targeting, a type of marketing that involves tracking people’s online behaviour for targeted advertising. It is hotly debated whether data protection law applies to behavioural targeting. Many behavioural targeting companies say that, as long as they do not tie names to data they hold about individuals, they do not process any personal data, and that, therefore, data protection law does not apply to them. European Data Protection Authorities, however, take the view that a company processes personal data if it uses data to single out a person, even if it cannot tie a name to these data. This paper argues that data protection law should indeed apply to behavioural targeting. Companies can often tie a name to nameless data about individuals. Furthermore, behavioural targeting relies on collecting information about individuals, singling out individuals, and targeting ads to individuals. Many privacy risks remain, regardless of whether companies tie a name to the information they hold about a person. A name is merely one of the identifiers that can be tied to data about a person, and it is not even the most practical identifier for behavioural targeting. Seeing data used to single out a person as personal data fits the rationale for data protection law: protecting fairness and privacy.},
keywords = {behavioural targeting, cookies, Data protection law, IP addresses, online behavioural advertising, Personal data, Privacy, profiling, pseudonymous data, tracking},
} Grondrechten, Privacy
Other{nokey,
title = {IE vincit omnia? Opsporing in de particuliere sector.},
author = {Kabel, J.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1724.pdf},
year = {0216},
date = {2016-02-16},
journal = {AMI},
number = {6},
abstract = {Bevel aan Google tot afgifte ex. art. 28 lid 9 Aw van persoons- en adresgegevens van de houder van een Google Play account vanwege onrechtmatige verkoop van e-books. Voorwaarde dat de houder op grond van art. 40 Wbp verzet kan aantekenen tegen die afgifte bij de verantwoordelijke (Google). Grondrechtenconflict bescherming van eigendom, vrijheid van meningsuiting en privacy.},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy},
}