Dr. McGonagle appointed to new Council of Europe committee of experts

Uncategorized

Dr. Tarlach McGonagle (Institute for Information Law, IViR) has been appointed to the Council of Europe’s new Committee of Experts on Media Pluralism and Transparency of Media Ownership. The main task of the Committee is to prepare a recommendation on these topics for adoption by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. The Recommendation will be addressed to the Council of Europe’s 47 member States.

The new expert committee will also “analyse best practices in Council of Europe member States with regard to policies and other measures ensuring a pluralist media landscape, transparency of media ownership, diversity of media content, inclusiveness in public service media, gender equality in media coverage of election campaigns”.  

McGonagle, a senior researcher at IViR, was Rapporteur for a similar Council of Europe expert committee – on protection of journalism and safety of journalists (2014-2015). The draft recommendation prepared by that expert committee has been submitted to the Committee of Ministers for adoption.

 


Dr. McGonagle benoemd tot lid van een nieuw Comité van Deskundigen van de Raad van Europa

Dr. Tarlach McGonagle (Instituut voor Informatierecht) is onlangs benoemd tot een nieuw Comité van Deskundigen van de Raad van Europa inzake media pluriformiteit en transparantie. Het Comité van Deskundigen heeft de opdracht gekregen een nieuwe aanbeveling over deze onderwerpen op te stellen en ter goedkeuring voor te leggen aan het Comité van Ministers van de Raad van Europa. De Aanbeveling zal zich richten tot de 47 lidstaten van de Raad van Europa.

Het nieuwe Comité van Deskundigen heeft ook als taak het analyseren van best practices van de lidstaten met betrekking tot het waarborgen van de pluriformiteit, diversiteit en transparantie van de media, inclusiviteit in de publieke omroep en gendergelijkheid in verslaggeving over verkiezingscampagnes.

McGonagle, senioronderzoeker op het IViR, was in 2014-2015 rapporteur bij een soortgelijk Comité van Deskunigen van de Raad van Europa dat over het beschermen van de journalistiek en de veiligheid van journalisten ging. De opgestelde conceptaanbeveling van dit  comité is ter goedkeuring voorgelegd aan het Comité van Ministers.

 

Verhuizing IViR – IVIR moving

Per 1 februari 2016 is het Instituut voor Informatierecht verhuist naar een nieuwe locatie:
As of 1 February 2016 the Institute for Information Law has moved to a new location:

Nieuw bezoekadres:
New visiting address:
Nieuw postadres:
New postal address:

Instituut voor Informatierecht
Vendelstraat 7
1012 XX Amsterdam
 
Instituut voor Informatierecht
Postbus 1030
1000 BA Amsterdam

Institute for Information Law
Vendelstraat 7
1012 XX Amsterdam
 
Institute for Information Law
PO Box 1030
1000 BA Amsterdam


 

 

 

Verhuizing IViR – IVIR moving

Uncategorized

Per 1 februari 2016 is het Instituut voor Informatierecht verhuist naar een nieuwe locatie:
As of 1 February 2016 the Institute for Information Law has moved to a new location:

Nieuw bezoekadres:
New visiting address:
Nieuw postadres:
New postal address:

Instituut voor Informatierecht
Vendelstraat 7
1012 XX Amsterdam
 
Instituut voor Informatierecht
Postbus 1030
1000 BA Amsterdam

Institute for Information Law
Vendelstraat 7
1012 XX Amsterdam
 
Institute for Information Law
PO Box 1030
1000 BA Amsterdam


 

 

 

Politieke profiling, ook in Nederland?

Het IViR is verheugd te kunnen melden dat het SIDN fonds een subsidie heeft toegekend voor het project

Politieke profiling, ook in Nederland?

In de Verenigde Staten wordt in politieke campagnes volop gebruik gemaakt van dataveillance en profiling van kiezers. Veel minder bekend is of en hoe spin-doctors in Nederland gebruik maken van online verzamelde data over individuele kiezers, om ze gericht te kunnen benaderen. Dit project gaat dit tijdens de verkiezingscampagnes van 2017 in kaart brengen en analyseren. De database wordt geanonimiseerd toegankelijk gemaakt voor iedereen. 

English abstract:

Unwinding the spin-doctors’ webs – monitoring data-driven micro-targeting during the Dutch 2017 elections”

Political communication is increasingly tailor-made. Parties and candidates focus more and more of their efforts on convincing opinion leaders and floating voters, which have increased in numbers in the recent two decades. Two important internet related developments support this change. On the one hand, there are many entities that observe us and collect data on our behavior from credit card companies to online services. A whole data broker industry developed based on that data, selling highly detailed information on the majority of individuals in Western societies. On the other hand, the proliferation of media outlets, including the plethora of online services offer better targeting opportunities. Our highly detailed online profiles on social media websites enable even better micro targeting opportunities for anyone willing to pay for the opportunity. Both of these developments promise huge payoffs for political campaigns. Campaigns in the USA are already among the biggest customers of the data broker industry. They are using highly sophisticated databases to maximize the impact of campaign spending. Experts expect similar developments to unfold in Europe in the near future. Despite the rapid emergence of data-driven micro targeting, no one is aware how these developments affect the foundations of our democratic system. We lack information on how the personalization of political communication takes place: how political parties utilize dataveillance, how they communicate online with citizens, to what extent and to what effect they personalize their messages. We propose an infrastructure with which we can observe the development of data-driven political micro targeting. Such an infrastructure would be unique, not only in the Netherlands, but in Europe, and would provide a much needed, yet currently non-existent insight into the process and consequences of the internet-driven transformation of political communication.

See also https://www.sidnfonds.nl/nieuws/ for more information about the different projects that were awarded with a grant by SIDN.

Promotie Hielke Hijmans

Uncategorized

Op 5 februari 2016 zal Hielke Hijmans zijn proefschrift getiteld:

The European Union as a Constitutional Guardian of Internet Privacy and Data Protection: the Story of Article 16 TFEU

in het openbaar verdedigen. 

Abstract: 
In a developing information data flow in an unprecedented way, enabling mass surveillance by governments and private companies. It is no longer evident that the rights to privacy and data protection are guaranteed. However, these rights remain essential in our democratic societies under the rule of law. The EU Treaties have provided the European Union a specific mandate to ensure protection, in Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This mandate is the subject of this thesis.
The thesis discusses the roles of different actors: the Court of Justice, the EU legislator, the national data protection authorities and their cooperation mechanism. A chapter is dedicated to the strategies of the Union itself in the global context.
The thesis underlines that the exercise of the mandate should be legitimate, in the sense that some democratic control is needed, and effective, meaning that individuals must benefit from the protection in practice. If the European Union manages to fulfil these two conditions, it shows its capability to properly deal with big societal issues, which is also important in a timeframe of widespread euroskeptics.
The thesis is the result of a research at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the University of Amsterdam. The author hopes to receive a joint doctorate at both universities. 

Plaats: Aula van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Oude Lutherse Kerk, Singel 411, 1012 XM Amsterdam.
Tijd: 13-00-14.00 uur.
Promotoren: Prof. dr. N.A.N.M. van Eijk (UvA) en Prof. dr. P.J.A. De Hert (VUB).

Zie hier een samenvatting van het proefschrift.
See here a summary of the thesis.

Lunch talk Empirical Legal Studies Initiative (ELSI)

Uncategorized

On Wednesday, 9 December, Dr. Roberto Galbiati (Sciences Po, Paris) will give a talk on empirical legal research:

Incarceration policy and reoffending: insights from empirical economics

Time: 13:00 – 15:00.
Place: Room A009, Law Faculty, University of Amsterdam, Oudemanhuispoort 4.

This seminar connects law and economics by providing an accessible application of empirical techniques from economics to key concepts in legal policy. Specifically, we will study individuals' responses to expected criminal sentences, and discuss natural experiments in sentencing policies to evaluate how incarceration itself affects reoffending.

Lunch will be provided. No registration needed.

This lunch talk is part of the Empirical Legal Studies Initiative (ELSI). ELSI was developed by the ACLE Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics and the IViR Institute for Information Law, in collaboration with the CREED Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision-making. The goal is to provide a platform for engaging in discussions about the opportunities, challenges, and pitfalls regarding the combination of normative and empirical research, and to exchange experiences and best practices. ELSI will organise seminars, workshops, and conferences and invites everybody at the law faculty to join our activities. 

Daniel Chen (Harvard, Toulouse School of Economics) will give a talk on 3 February 2015.

The call for papers for the first conference on Empirical Legal Studies in Europe (CELSE) at the University of Amsterdam on 21-22 June 2016 is now open. The keynote speakers are Jennifer H. Arlen (NYU School of Law), Ian Ayres (Yale Law School), Bernard Black (Northwestern University School of Law) and Rens Bod (University of Amsterdam). Paper submission deadline: 15 February 2016 (6:00 CET). For more information please see: http://celse2016.acle.nl/ 

PhD defence Lodewijk Pessers

Uncategorized

On Friday 18 December 2015, Lodewijk Pessers will defend his PhD thesis in public. The thesis is called:

The Evolution of the Inventiveness Requirement

Place: Aula of the University of Amsterdam (Oude Lutherse kerk, Singel 411, 1012 XM Amsterdam).
Time: 13.00 – 14.00 hours.

Summary of the book:

This book follows the requirement of inventiveness (in patent law) in its historical evolution, that is, from the very first moment that we can distinguish its contours up to the present day. In doing so, it focuses on three aspects in particular: what are the historical phases that can be discerned in the requirement’s evolution? What are the socio-economic and political forces that have determined or influenced its course? And how can (dis)similarities between the jurisdictions under examination (i.e. the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands) be explained? For reasons of structure and overview, the book is divided into two parts. The first describes the evolution in its first three phases: the medieval, the mercantilist and the pre-modern ones. The latter is dedicated to the modern phase and pays particular attention to two different ‘schools’ that have developed in the 19th century and that continue to be relevant for the doctrine’s direction, even today. It will be argued that this dichotomy, that in this book is dubbed the qualitative – quantitative divide, has gradually merged into a hybrid approach that is rather qualitative in its appearance, but quantitative in its application.

International privacy law and technology scholars recommend practical steps in improving protection for EU and US Internet Users

October 21, 2015

Just two weeks after Europe’s highest court struck down the “safe-harbor” agreement that let companies move digital information between the EU and the US, a group of nineteen privacy law and technology experts from the European Union and the United States released ten practical proposals  to increase the level of privacy protection in Trans-Atlantic Internet environment. The goal of this report is to bridge gaps between the existing approaches to data privacy of the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), in a way that produces a high level of privacy protection, furthering the rights of individuals and increasing certainty for commercial organizations.

“Privacy Bridges,” as described in the group’s report, will increase user control over personal data online, foster shared norms on new privacy challenges such as big data analytics and Internet of things, and develop common approaches to shared privacy obligations such as data breach notification and de-identification standards.

Describing the work of the group, co-chair Daniel Weitzner, Director of the MIT Internet Policy Research Initiative explains, “our study over the last two years shows that the European Union and the United States share common democratic values, from which much of our privacy law and practice has developed. However, each legal system has made very different choices in how we implement those values. With Internet services that operate across the US-EU border in real time, we believe  that increased practical engagement between civil society, industry, academia and governments is vital to develop shared privacy practices. Respecting existing law, these shared practices can advance the practical privacy rights of Internet users whether they are in Europe, the United States or elsewhere.”

The Privacy Bridges report is being released at a sensitive moment in EU-US privacy relations, with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declaring the Safe Harbor agreement invalid for failure to protect the fundamental rights of EU citizens.

Prof. Nico van Eijk, co-convenor of the Bridges group from the University of Amsterdam explains, “Our goal with Privacy Bridges is to encourage a set of common set of privacy practices that treat all users equally, regardless of where they live. The recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union demonstrates how urgent this task is today.”

The Privacy Bridges project has been invited to present the results of our work as the centerpiece of the 37th International Privacy Conference, the annual gathering of data protection and privacy regulators from around the world, held this year in Amsterdam on 27-28 October. The report is the result of a 1½ year long study process convened by the University of Amsterdam Institute for Information Law and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Internet Policy Research Initiative. The Privacy Bridges project began nearly 2 years ago with strong encouragement from Dutch Data Protection Commission Chair Jacob Kohnstamm so we are pleased to have the chance to present this work at the International Conference which he is chairing this year.

The bridges

These ten privacy bridges are all practical steps that require no change to the law yet will result in better-informed, more consistent regulatory cooperation, policy guidance, and enforcement activity. While many members of the expert group that produced these recommendations have strong views about the future direction of US and EU privacy laws, here we seek to contribute to privacy challenges facing the information society, without entering into debates on changes to underlying constitutional or statutory frameworks. Privacy Bridges mission has never sought to define the legal relationships between the US and the European Union. We believe that is a matter for democratic debate and government leadership. There is urgency for governments to take on these questions, but we believe we cannot wait to undertake these practical steps in parallel.

  • Bridge 1: Deepen the Article 29 Working Party/Federal Trade Commission relationship
  • Bridge 2: Promote widespread implementation of  user control technologies
  • Bridge 3: Develop new approaches to transparency
  • Bridge 4: Implement user-complaint mechanisms to ease redress of violations outside a user’s region
  • Bridge 5: Develop best practices for handling government access to private sector personal data
  • Bridge 6: Develop best practices for de-identification of personal data
  • Bridge 7: Share best practices for security breach notification
  • Bridge 8: Enhancing Accountability
  • Bridge 9: Greater government-to-government engagement among executive branch policymakers
  • Bridge 10: Collaborating on privacy research programs

The participants

  • Jean-François Abramatic, French National Institute for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics (INRIA)
  • Bojana Bellamy, Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams
  • Mary Ellen Callahan, Jenner & Block
  • Fred Cate, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
  • Patrick van Eecke, University of Antwerp
  • Nico van Eijk, Institute for Information Law (IViR) University of Amsterdam (UvA) [Co- chair]
  • Elspeth Guild, Centre for European Policy Studies
  • Paul de Hert, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VuB) and Tilburg University
  • Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (retired)
  • Christopher Kuner, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VuB)
  • Deirdre Mulligan, University of California Berkeley
  • Nuala O’Connor, Center for Democracy and Technology
  • Joel Reidenberg, Fordham University School of Law
  • Ira Rubinstein, Information Law Institute, New York University School of Law [Rapporteur]
  • Peter Schaar, European Academy for Freedom of Information and Data Protection
  • Nigel Shadbolt, Oxford University
  • Sarah Spiekermann, Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU Vienna)
  • David Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Daniel J. Weitzner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Co-chair]

The report can be found at: http://privacybridges.org/research/amsterdamreport
Contact MIT: Adam Conner-Simons, aconner@csail.mit.edu, +1 617-324-9135
Contact IViR: Nico van Eijk, n.a.n.m.vaneijk@uva.nl, +31205253931/3406

Media coverage:

In Dutch:

International privacy law and technology scholars recommend practical steps in improving protection for EU and US Internet Users

October 21, 2015

Just two weeks after Europe’s highest court struck down the “safe-harbor” agreement that let companies move digital information between the EU and the US, a group of nineteen privacy law and technology experts from the European Union and the United States released ten practical proposals  to increase the level of privacy protection in Trans-Atlantic Internet environment. The goal of this report is to bridge gaps between the existing approaches to data privacy of the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), in a way that produces a high level of privacy protection, furthering the rights of individuals and increasing certainty for commercial organizations.

“Privacy Bridges,” as described in the group’s report, will increase user control over personal data online, foster shared norms on new privacy challenges such as big data analytics and Internet of things, and develop common approaches to shared privacy obligations such as data breach notification and de-identification standards.

Describing the work of the group, co-chair Daniel Weitzner, Director of the MIT Internet Policy Research Initiative explains, “our study over the last two years shows that the European Union and the United States share common democratic values, from which much of our privacy law and practice has developed. However, each legal system has made very different choices in how we implement those values. With Internet services that operate across the US-EU border in real time, we believe  that increased practical engagement between civil society, industry, academia and governments is vital to develop shared privacy practices. Respecting existing law, these shared practices can advance the practical privacy rights of Internet users whether they are in Europe, the United States or elsewhere.”

The Privacy Bridges report is being released at a sensitive moment in EU-US privacy relations, with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declaring the Safe Harbor agreement invalid for failure to protect the fundamental rights of EU citizens.

Prof. Nico van Eijk, co-convenor of the Bridges group from the University of Amsterdam explains, “Our goal with Privacy Bridges is to encourage a set of common set of privacy practices that treat all users equally, regardless of where they live. The recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union demonstrates how urgent this task is today.”

The Privacy Bridges project has been invited to present the results of our work as the centerpiece of the 37th International Privacy Conference, the annual gathering of data protection and privacy regulators from around the world, held this year in Amsterdam on 27-28 October. The report is the result of a 1½ year long study process convened by the University of Amsterdam Institute for Information Law and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Internet Policy Research Initiative. The Privacy Bridges project began nearly 2 years ago with strong encouragement from Dutch Data Protection Commission Chair Jacob Kohnstamm so we are pleased to have the chance to present this work at the International Conference which he is chairing this year.

The bridges

These ten privacy bridges are all practical steps that require no change to the law yet will result in better-informed, more consistent regulatory cooperation, policy guidance, and enforcement activity. While many members of the expert group that produced these recommendations have strong views about the future direction of US and EU privacy laws, here we seek to contribute to privacy challenges facing the information society, without entering into debates on changes to underlying constitutional or statutory frameworks. Privacy Bridges mission has never sought to define the legal relationships between the US and the European Union. We believe that is a matter for democratic debate and government leadership. There is urgency for governments to take on these questions, but we believe we cannot wait to undertake these practical steps in parallel.

  • Bridge 1: Deepen the Article 29 Working Party/Federal Trade Commission relationship
  • Bridge 2: Promote widespread implementation of  user control technologies
  • Bridge 3: Develop new approaches to transparency
  • Bridge 4: Implement user-complaint mechanisms to ease redress of violations outside a user’s region
  • Bridge 5: Develop best practices for handling government access to private sector personal data
  • Bridge 6: Develop best practices for de-identification of personal data
  • Bridge 7: Share best practices for security breach notification
  • Bridge 8: Enhancing Accountability
  • Bridge 9: Greater government-to-government engagement among executive branch policymakers
  • Bridge 10: Collaborating on privacy research programs

The participants

  • Jean-François Abramatic, French National Institute for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics (INRIA)
  • Bojana Bellamy, Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams
  • Mary Ellen Callahan, Jenner & Block
  • Fred Cate, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
  • Patrick van Eecke, University of Antwerp
  • Nico van Eijk, Institute for Information Law (IViR) University of Amsterdam (UvA) [Co- chair]
  • Elspeth Guild, Centre for European Policy Studies
  • Paul de Hert, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VuB) and Tilburg University
  • Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (retired)
  • Christopher Kuner, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VuB)
  • Deirdre Mulligan, University of California Berkeley
  • Nuala O’Connor, Center for Democracy and Technology
  • Joel Reidenberg, Fordham University School of Law
  • Ira Rubinstein, Information Law Institute, New York University School of Law [Rapporteur]
  • Peter Schaar, European Academy for Freedom of Information and Data Protection
  • Nigel Shadbolt, Oxford University
  • Sarah Spiekermann, Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU Vienna)
  • David Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Daniel J. Weitzner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Co-chair]

The report can be found at: http://privacybridges.org/research/amsterdamreport
Contact MIT: Adam Conner-Simons, aconner@csail.mit.edu, +1 617-324-9135
Contact IViR: Nico van Eijk, n.a.n.m.vaneijk@uva.nl, +31205253931/3406

Media coverage:

In Dutch:

Study on the Future of European Audiovisual Regulation

The Hans-Bredow-Institute and the Institute for Information Law (IViR) have published a study on the future of European audiovisual media regulation. The study develops new ideas and recommendations for shaping a new European framework. A structural reform is favoured, as a response to digitization and convergence. The new framework should concentrate on general principles and be able to adapt and learn. Regulation should not be linked to types of services, but rather be developed by considering its goals, like protection of minors and consumer protection. Standards should be set allowing for effective regulation and coordination. Moreover by taking a 360-degree view on all relevant areas of regulation, it needs to become visible, where the European Law can offer leeway for to the member states’ own media policy.

The study called HERMES draws a precise image of current media consumption and value-added chains by examining several EU member states, as well as certain international states. The developments of the last years are being examined and current phenomena are explored. The centre of attention is the shift away from regular TV to non-linear media and the consumption via alternative channels as well as via new devices, which were not yet taken into account when shaping the present framework. The outcomes are analysed and put into practical guidelines for the near future.

The study has been supported by a grant of RTL Group, Luxembourg.