Abstract
This chapter contains the introduction of this book, which was written against a background of a developing information society in which 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. There is a widespread perception that control is lost.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt (NY).
- 2.
Lack of overview is a recurring theme, as illustrated by Prins in: Hijmans and Kranenborg, Data Protection Anno 2014: How to Restore Trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia.
- 3.
Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Improving Privacy Protection in the Area of Behavioural Targeting, Kluwer Law International, 2015.
- 4.
Federico Ferretti, “Data protection and the legitimate interest of data controllers: Much ado about nothing or the winter of rights?”, CMLR 51, pp. 843–868, at 864.
- 5.
See, e.g., Chap. 8 of this book.
- 6.
Statement by Commissioner Vestager on antitrust decisions concerning Google, Brussels, 15 April 2015, available on: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-15-4785_en.htm.
- 7.
As reported by CEO Mark Zuckerberg in July 2015, see: http://wersm.com/facebook-now-has-over-1-4-billion-monthly-active-users/.
- 8.
As reported in 2015 by Brendan Van Alsenoy a.o. in their report “From social media service to advertising network, A critical analysis of Facebooks Revised Policies and Terms, at 33–35.
- 9.
Case C-362/14, Schrems, EU:C:2015:650.
- 10.
Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, OJ L 215/7.
- 11.
See, e.g., para. 90 of the ruling.
- 12.
According to the OECD only 40 % of the citizens in OECD countries trust their government (2012), see: http://www.oecd.org/gov/trust-in-government.htm.
- 13.
Eurostat mentions a citizens’ confidence level in EU institutions of 42 % (2014), see: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=able&init=1&plugin=1&pcode=tsdgo510&language=en.
- 14.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda, COM (2015) 215 final, at 3.
- 15.
As will be explained in Chap. 7, in relation to the CJEU case law on the independence of the data protection authorities.
- 16.
With reference to Paul Craig and Grainne de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Material (fifth edition), Oxford University Press, 2011, Chap. 8.
- 17.
For an elaboration, see: Koen Lenaerts, Ignace Maselis and Kathleen Gutman 2014, EU Procedural Law, Oxford University Press, at 4.05.
- 18.
See mainly Chap. 4.
- 19.
With reference to Kenneth A. Bamberger and Deirdre K. Mulligan, “Privacy on the Books and on the Ground”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 63, January 2011.
- 20.
The term used by Eurostat (2014). See weblink in footnote 13.
- 21.
E.g., Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM (2010) 245 final, at 2.3; European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion of 20 February 2014 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on “Rebuilding Trust in EU – US Data Flows” and on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on “the Functioning of the Safe Harbour from the Perspective of EU Citizens and Companies Established in the EU”.
- 22.
“Trust is a concept that is fundamental and disparate, intuitive and indescribable”, as Lee Shaker formulates it in his paper; Lee Shaker, “In Google we trust: Information integrity in the digital age”, First Monday, Vol. 11, No. 4, 3 April 2006.
- 23.
- 24.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), COM (2012), 11 final.
- 25.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119/1.
- 26.
Koen Lenaerts and Piet van Nuffel, European Union Law (third edition), (Sweet & Maxwell, 2011), at 13-063.
- 27.
See Article 2 TEU.
- 28.
It is stated that “By tradition European countries club together when the benefits of doing so exceed the costs in lost sovereignty” (Economist, “Europe’s energy plans are a cautious step in the right direction”, 7 March 2015, at 27, on energy policy). However, Chap. 4 of this book contains nuances to the tendency that countries are really clubbing together to address privacy on the internet. They should club together, but they do not always do this.
- 29.
See in particular Case C-518/07, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2010:125.
- 30.
As is done in a ‘law & economics’ approach.
- 31.
An approach of social science.
- 32.
Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (second edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
- 33.
Of less importance for privacy and data protection on the internet is Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119/1. The reform is expected to consist of additional legal instruments, such as a new instrument for data protection within the EU institutions and bodies as announced in Article 98 of the GDPR.
- 34.
In a wide sense, on the one hand also including international treaties and national legislation and on the other hand also including soft law instruments.
- 35.
“Privacy Bridges, EU and US privacy experts in search of transatlantic privacy solutions”, Amsterdam/Cambridge, September 2015, available on: https://www.cbpweb.nl/sites/default/files/atoms/files/privacy_bridges_paper.pdf.
- 36.
E.g., Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath, (W.W. Norton & Company, 2015).
- 37.
Terminology by Manuel Castells in: The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (second edition), (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). See Chap. 3 of this book.
- 38.
Unlikely to happen on the very short term, as a result of Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice, EU:C:2014:2475.
- 39.
A good overview of the main elements of the US law and structures in this area can be found in: Privacy Bridges, EU and US privacy experts in search of transatlantic privacy solutions”, Amsterdam/Cambridge, September 2015, available on: https://www.cbpweb.nl/sites/default/files/atoms/files/privacy_bridges_paper.pdf. The sections on US law and structures in this book are meant to illustrate the context in which the EU operates.
- 40.
On the ‘Translantic Data Protection Divide’, see: Lee A. Bygrave, Data Privacy Law, An International Perspective, (Oxford University Press, 2014).
- 41.
David C. Vladeck, “A U.S. Perspective on Narrowing the U.S.-EU Privacy Divide”, in: Artemi Rallo Lombarte, Rosario García Mahamut (eds), Hacia un Nuevo derecho europea de protección de datos, Towards a new European Data Protection Regime, Tirant lo Blanch, 2015, pp. 207–245.
- 42.
See particularly Chap. 7.
References
Alsenoy, Brendan Van a.o. 2015. From social media service to advertising network, a critical analysis of Facebooks Revised Policies and Terms. Available on: https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/en/news/item/facebooks-revised-policies-and-terms-v1-2.pdf.
Bamberger, Kenneth A., and Deirdre K. Mulligan. 2011. Privacy on the books and on the ground. Stanford Law Review 63: 247.
Bygrave, Lee A. 2014. Data privacy law, an international perspective. Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel. 2009. The rise of the network society. Volume I: The information age: Economy, society and culture. 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell.
Craig, Paul, and Grainne de Búrca. 2011. EU law: text, cases and material, 5th ed. Oxford University Press.
de Búrca, Gráinne, and J.H.H. Weiler (eds.). 2012. The worlds of European constitutionalism (contemporary European politics). Cambridge University Press.
Ferretti, Federico. 2014. Data protection and the legitimate interest of data controllers: Much ado about nothing or the winter of rights? Common Market Law Review 51: 843–868.
Greenwald, Glenn. 2014. No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the surveillance state. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.
Hijmans, Hielke, and Kranenborg Herke (eds.). 2014. Data protection anno 2014: How to restore trust? Contributions in honour of peter hustinx, European data protection supervisor (2004–2014). Intersentia.
Hornung, Gerrit, and Christoph Schnabel. 2009. Data protection in Germany I: The population census decision and the right to informational self-determination. Computer Law & Security Report 25(1): 84–88.
Lee, Shaker. 2006. In google we trust: Information integrity in the digital age. First Monday 11(4): 3.
Lenaerts, Koen, Ignace Maselis, and Kathleen Gutman. 2014. EU procedural law. Oxford University Press.
Privacy Bridges, EU and US privacy experts in search of transatlantic privacy solutions. Amsterdam/Cambridge, September 2015. Available on: https://www.cbpweb.nl/sites/default/files/atoms/files/privacy_bridges_paper.pdf.
Schneier, Bruce. 2015. Data and Goliath. W.W. Norton & Company.
van Dijck, José. 2014. Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society 12(2): 197–208.
Vladeck, David C. 2015. “A U.S. Perspective on Narrowing the U.S.-EU Privacy Divide”. In: Hacia un Nuevo derecho europea de protección de datos. Towards a new European Data Protection Regime, ed. Artemi Rallo Lombarte, and Rosario García Mahamut, 207–245. Tirant lo Blanch.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik J. 2015. Improving privacy protection in the area of behavioural targeting. Kluwer Law International.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hijmans, H. (2016). Introduction. In: The European Union as Guardian of Internet Privacy. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34090-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34090-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-34089-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-34090-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)