Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visions of Technology

Big Data Lessons Understood by EU Policy Makers in Their Review of the Legal Frameworks on Intellectual Property Rights, Access to and Re-use of PSI and the Protection of Personal Data

  • Chapter
Data Protection on the Move

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((ISDP,volume 24))

Abstract

This article’s focus is on how the advent of big data technology and practices has been understood and addressed by policy makers in the EU. We start with a reflection on of how big data affects business processes and how it contributes to the creation of a data economy. Then we look at EU policy making on big data and its understanding of the role and impact of ICT in the economy. We study 3 major legal frameworks affecting data flows and uses: intellectual property rights, access to and re-use of PSI and the protection of personal data. We explore how these frameworks affect the use of big data and how this is perceived and dealt with in the policy documents. In order to widen our perspective, we also take a comparative look at similar legal frameworks and policies in the US.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This article is the result from research done as part of the BYTE project (http://byte-project.eu/). The authors are solely responsible for the opinions expressed.

  2. 2.

    The scope of this article does not allow us to be exhaustive and limits us to exploring the subject. We focus on regulatory issues concerning the access to, linking of and (re-)use of data and the legal environment in which this takes place. Other elements of policies, like concerning investment in infrastructure or research projects, we leave outside of our consideration. Also specific regulations, e.g. on law enforcement, remain outside the remit of this article.

  3. 3.

    European Commission, A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010)245, 19 May 2010; European Commission, The Digital Agenda for Europe – Driving European growth digitally, COM(2012)784, 18 December 2012.

  4. 4.

    European Commission, Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe, COM(2012) 529, 27 September 2012.

  5. 5.

    European Commission, Towards a thriving data-driven economy, COM(2014) 442, 2 July 2014; European Commission, Report on the Implementation of the Communication 'Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe' Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'Towards a thriving data-driven economy', SWD/2014/0214, 2 July 2014.

  6. 6.

    Porter, Michael E., Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York, 1985.

  7. 7.

    European Commission, The Digital Agenda for Europe—Driving European growth digitally, COM(2012)784, 18.12.2012, p. 6.

  8. 8.

    European Commission, annex II of the “Communication: Towards interoperability for European public services” - COM(2010) 744 final.

  9. 9.

    Technical interoperability concerns the technical aspects of linking information systems. Organisational interoperability concerns how organisations cooperate to achieve their goals. It implies aligning business processes and the related data exchanges. Legal interoperability concerns how to deal with differences in legal status. Datasets can have a different legal status and be subjected to different legal rules, what can lead to obstructions linking them or to limitations of data exchange. Semantic interoperability ensures that the precise meaning of exchanged information is understood and preserved throughout the data exchanges. It involves developing descriptions or other metadata and vocabularies concerning the exact format of information and the meaning of data elements and their relations. Growing levels of semantic interoperability make it easier to link otherwise isolated data sources.

  10. 10.

    This conceptual model was developed for public services, but we use it here in a generalised meaning.

  11. 11.

    European Commission, eEurope 2002—An Information society for all—Draft Action Plan prepared by the European Commission for the European Council in Feira - 19-20 June 2000, COM(2000)233, 24.5.2000.

  12. 12.

    European Commission, e Europe 2005: An information society for all. An Action Plan to be presented in view of the Sevilla European Council, 21/22 June 2002, COM(2002)263, 28.5.2002.

  13. 13.

    European Commission, i2010—A European Information Society for growth and employment, COM(2005) 229, 1.6.2005.

  14. 14.

    European Commission, Europe's Way to the Information Society. An Action Plan, COM(94)347, 19.07.1994, p. 6.

  15. 15.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) .

  16. 16.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

  17. 17.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases.

  18. 18.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2003/98/EC of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (PSI-directive).

  19. 19.

    We will focus on the actions and resulting policy initiatives that concern the access, linking and use of data.

  20. 20.

    European Commission, A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010)245, 19.5.2010, p. 9.

  21. 21.

    European Commission, The Digital Agenda for Europe—Driving European growth digitally, COM(2012)784, 18.12.2012, p. 5.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., p. 6.

  23. 23.

    European Commission, On content in the Digital Single Market, COM(2012)789, 18.12.2012; Results can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/licences-for-europe-dialogue/en.

  24. 24.

    European Commission, Open data. An engine for innovation, growth and transparent governance, COM(2011)882, 12.12.2011.

  25. 25.

    European Commission, Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe, COM(2012) 529, 27 September 2012.

  26. 26.

    European Commission, Report on the Implementation of the Communication 'Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe' Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'Towards a thriving data-driven economy', SWD/2014/0214, 2 July 2014.

  27. 27.

    European Commission, On content in the Digital Single Market, COM(2012)789, 18.12.2012.

  28. 28.

    European Commission, Towards a thriving data-driven economy, COM(2014) 442, 2 July 2014.

  29. 29.

    European Commission, A European strategy on the data value chain, November 2013.

  30. 30.

    European Council, Conclusions – 24–25 October 2013, EUCO 169/13, 25 October 2013, §3.

  31. 31.

    European Commission, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2015)192, 6 May 2015.

  32. 32.

    WIPO Copyright Treaty, art. 2; TRIPS, art. 9 §2.

  33. 33.

    Paul Goldstein, International Copyright. Principles, Law, and Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 161–164.

  34. 34.

    Janssen, Katleen, and Jos Dumortier, "The Protection of Maps and Spatial Databases in Europe and the United States by Copyright and the Sui Generis Right", J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L., Vol. 24 No.195, 2006, pp. 207–211.

  35. 35.

    EUCJ, C-5/08, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, 16 July 2009, §37.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., §45.

  37. 37.

    An overview of case law can be found in Leslie C. Ruiter and Gerald van Belle, Data Extraction: Beyond the Sweat of the Brow, http://www.stokeslaw.com/uploads/pdf/data_and_the_law-gerald_van_belle_and_leslie_ruiter.pdf.

  38. 38.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, art. 3§1.

  39. 39.

    Maarten Truyens & Patrick Van Eecke, “Legal aspects of text mining”, Computer law & security review 30 (2014), 160.

  40. 40.

    European Commission, First evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, DG Internal Market and Services Working Paper, 12 December 2005, pp. 22–23.

  41. 41.

    Hargreaves, Ian, Digital Opportunity: Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, May 2011, p.19.

  42. 42.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., art.5 §5.

  44. 44.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, art. 5 §1.

  45. 45.

    EUCJ, C-302/10, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, 17 January 2012.

  46. 46.

    EUCJ, C-360/13, Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v. Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others, 5 June 2014 (aka the Meltwater decision); EUCJ, C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd, 4 October 2011.

  47. 47.

    17 U.S.C. §107.

  48. 48.

    Netanel, Neil. (2011). Making Sense of Fair Use. UCLA: UCLA School of Law.

  49. 49.

    Intellectual Property Office, The UK’s International Strategy for Intellectual Property, 11 August 2011, p. 13.

  50. 50.

    Triaille, Jean-Paul, Jérôme de Meeûs d’Argenteuil and Amélie de Francquen, Study on the legal framework of text and data mining (TDM), March 2014, pp. 10–11.

  51. 51.

    Australian Law Reform Commission, Copyright and the Digital Economy. Final Report, ALRC Report 122, 30 November 2013, p. 13.

  52. 52.

    Copyright Review Committee, Modernising Copyright. The Report of the Copyright Review Committee for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Dublin, 2013.

  53. 53.

    European Commission, On content in the Digital Single Market, COM(2012)789, 18.12.2012.

  54. 54.

    European Commission, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2015)192, 6 May 2015.

  55. 55.

    Gutwirth, S., De Hert, P., Regulating Profiling in a Democratic Constitutional State, in Hildebrandt, M. and Gutwirth, S. (eds.), Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008, 271–293.

  56. 56.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, 24.10.1995.

  57. 57.

    European Commission, 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, 5 April 2012.

  58. 58.

    US Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens, Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems, July 1973.

  59. 59.

    Chris Jay Hoofnagle, “Big Brother's Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process, and Package Your Data for Law Enforcement”, N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg., Vol. 29, No. 595, Summer 2004.

  60. 60.

    Solove, Daniel J. and Hartzog, Woodrow, “The FTC and the New Common Law of Privacy”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 114, No. 583, 2014.

  61. 61.

    Tene, Omer and Jules Polonetsky, Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics, 11 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 239 (2013); Ira S. Rubinstein, Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning?, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-56; Lokke Moerel, Big Data Protection: How to Make the Draft EU Regulation on Data Protection Future Proof, Tilburg University, 2014.

  62. 62.

    Ohm, Paul, Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization, 57 UCLA Law Review 1701 (2010), 1701–1777; Schwartz, Paul M. and Solove, Daniel J., The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information, New York University Law Review, December 2011, 1814–1894; Alessandro Mantelero, Defining a new paradigm for data protection in the world of Big Data analytics-2014 ASE BIGDATA-SOCIALCOM-CYBERSECURITY Conference, Stanford University, May 27–31, 2014.

  63. 63.

    Tene, Omer and Jules Polonetsky, Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics, 11 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 239 (2013), 258–259; Paul Ohm, Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization, 57 UCLA Law Review 1701 (2010), 1759–1777; Schwartz, Paul M. and Solove, Daniel J., The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information, New York University Law Review, December 2011, 1879–1894.

  64. 64.

    WP29, Statement of the WP29 on the role of a risk-based approach in data protection legal frameworks, 30 May 2014.

  65. 65.

    White House, Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy, 23 February 2012.

  66. 66.

    NTIA, “Privacy Multistakeholder Process: Mobile Application Transparency”, 12 Nov 2013. www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/privacy-multistakeholder-process-mobile-application-transparency.

  67. 67.

    NTIA, “Privacy Multistakeholder Process: Facial Recognition Technology”, 11 June 2015. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology.

  68. 68.

    United States Government Accountability Office, Information Resellers. Consumer Privacy Framework Needs to Reflect Changes in Technology and the Marketplace, GAO-13-663, September 2013.

  69. 69.

    Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, A Review of the Data Broker Industry: Collection, Use, and Sale of Consumer Data for Marketing Purposes, 18 December 2013.

  70. 70.

    Federal Trade Commission, Data Brokers. A Call for Transparency and Accountability, May 2014.

  71. 71.

    White House, Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, 1 May 2014.

  72. 72.

    President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Big Data: A Technological Perspective, White House, 1 May 2014.

  73. 73.

    European Commission, Towards a thriving data-driven economy, COM(2014) 442, 2 July 2014.

  74. 74.

    Gelmann, Robert, “The Foundations of United States Government Information Dissemination Policy”, in Aichholzer, Georg and Herbert Burkert, Public Sector Information in the Digital Age, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, 2004, 123–136.

  75. 75.

    Volman, Yvo, “Exploitation of Public Sector Information in the Context of the eEurope Action Plan”, in Aichholzer, Georg and Herbert Burkert, Public Sector Information in the Digital Age, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, 2004, 93-107; Weiss, Peter N., “Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impacts”, in Aichholzer, Georg and Herbert Burkert, Public Sector Information in the Digital Age, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, 2004, 137–159.

  76. 76.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information (PSI-directive), 17 November 2003, art. 2(4).

  77. 77.

    Janssen, Katleen, The EC Legal Framework for the Availability of Public Sector Spatial Data. An examination of the criteria for applying the directive on access to environmental information, the PSI directive and the INSPIRE directive, ICRI, Leuven, 4 December 2009, p. 65.

  78. 78.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information (PSI-directive), 17 November 2003, art. 5(1).

  79. 79.

    European Commission, Open data. An engine for innovation, growth and transparent governance, COM(2011) 882, 12.12.2011.

  80. 80.

    https://open-data.europa.eu.

  81. 81.

    http://publicdata.eu.

  82. 82.

    European Commission, The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government, COM(2010)743, 15.12.2010, p. 4.

  83. 83.

    European Commission, Towards interoperability for European public services, COM(2010) 744, annex I, 16.12.2010.

  84. 84.

    European Commission, Towards interoperability for European public services, COM(2010) 744, annex II, 16.12.2010.

  85. 85.

    An overview of the progress can be found on http://www.daeimplementation.eu/dae_actions.php?action_n=26.

  86. 86.

    http://ec.europa.eu/isa/.

  87. 87.

    Gelmann, Robert, “The Foundations of United States Government Information Dissemination Policy”, in Aichholzer, Georg and Herbert Burkert, Public Sector Information in the Digital Age, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, 2004, 130.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., 126.

  89. 89.

    White House, Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, 21 January 2009.

  90. 90.

    Office of Management and Budget, Open Government Directive, M-10-06, 8 December 2009.

  91. 91.

    White House, Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, 23 May 2012.

  92. 92.

    European Commission, Towards a thriving data-driven economy, COM(2014) 442, 2 July 2014.

Bibliography

  • Alessandro Mantelero. 2014. Defining a new paradigm for data protection in the world of Big Data analytics-2014 ASE BIGDATA-SOCIALCOM-CYBERSECURITY Conference. Stanford University, 27–31 May 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2014. Statement on the role of a risk-based approach in data protection legal frameworks, WP218, 30 May 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission. 2013. Copyright and the Digital Economy. Final Report, ALRC Report 122, 30 Nov 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copyright Review Committee. 2013. Modernising Copyright. The Report of the Copyright Review Committee for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Dublin.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 1994. Europe’s way to the information society. An action plan, COM(94)347, 19 July 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2000. eEurope 2002—An Information society for all—Draft Action Plan prepared by the European Commission for the European Council in Feira—19–20 June 2000, COM(2000)233, 24 May 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2002. e Europe 2005: An information society for all. An Action Plan to be presented in view of the Sevilla European Council, 21/22 June 2002, COM(2002)263, 28 May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2005. i2010—A European Information Society for growth and employment, COM(2005) 229, 1 June 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2005. First evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, DG Internal Market and Services Working Paper, 12 Dec 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010)245, 19 May 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable and innovative Government, COM(2010)743, 15 Dec 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Towards interoperability for European public services, COM(2010) 744, annex I & II, 16 Dec 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Open data. An engine for innovation, growth and transparent governance, COM(2011) 882, 12 Dec 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Unleashing the potential of cloud computing in Europe, COM(2012)529, 27 Sept 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, The Digital Agenda for Europe—Driving European growth digitally, COM(2012)784, 18 Dec 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, On content in the Digital Single Market, COM(2012)789, 18 Dec 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, A European strategy on the data value chain, November 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Towards a thriving data-driven economy, COM(2014) 442, 2 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Report on the Implementation of the Communication ‘Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe’ Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Towards a thriving data-driven economy’, SWD/2014/0214, 2 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2015)192, 6 May 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. 2013. Conclusions. EUCO 169/13, 24–25 Oct 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Trade Commission. Data Brokers. A Call for Transparency and Accountability, May 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelmann, Robert. 2004. The foundations of United States Government Information Dissemination Policy. In Public sector information in the digital age eds. Aichholzer, Georg and Herbert Burkert, 123–136. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Paul. 2001. International copyright principles, law, and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutwirth, Serge and Paul De Hert. (2008) Regulating profiling in a democratic constitutional state. In Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-disciplinary perspectives eds. Hildebrandt, M. and Gutwirth, S, 271–293. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, Ian. 2011. Digital Opportunity: Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, May 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoofnagle, Chris Jay. 2004. Big brother’s little helpers: How choice point and other commercial data brokers collect, process, and package your data for law enforcement. N.C.J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg 29: 595 (Summer 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Intellectual Property Office. 2011. The UK’s International Strategy for Intellectual Property, 11 August 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ira S. Rubinstein, Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning?, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, Katleen, The EC Legal Framework for the Availability of Public Sector Spatial Data. An examination of the criteria for applying the directive on access to environmental information, the PSI directive and the INSPIRE directive, ICRI, Leuven, 4 December 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, Katleen, and Jos Dumortier. 2006. The protection of maps and spatial databases in Europe and the United States by copyright and the Sui Generis Right. Journal of Marshall Journal Computer & Information Law 24(2): 195–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie C. Ruiter and Gerald van Belle. Data extraction: Beyond the Sweat of the Brow. http://www.stokeslaw.com/uploads/pdf/data_and_the_law-gerald_van_belle_and_leslie_ruiter.pdf.

  • Lokke Moerel. 2014. Big data protection: How to make the draft EU regulation on data protection future proof. Tilburg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netanel, Neil. 2011. Making sense of fair use. Lewis & Clark Law Review 15(2011): 715–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Management and Budget. 2009. Open Government Directive, M-10-06, 8 Dec 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohm, Paul. 2010. Broken Promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization, 57. UCLA Law Review 1701: 1701–1777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Michael E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2014. Big Data: A Technological Perspective, White House, 1 May 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Paul M. and Daniel J. Solove. 2011. The PII problem: Privacy and a new concept of personally identifiable information, New York University Law Review, 1814–1894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solove, Daniel J. and Woodrow Hartzog. 2014. The FTC and the new common law of privacy. Columbia Law Review 114: 583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tene, Omer and Jules Polonetsky. 2013. Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 11: 239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triaille, Jean-Paul. 2014. Jérôme de Meeûs d’Argenteuil and Amélie de Francquen. Study on the legal framework of text and data mining (TDM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Truyens, Maarten, and Patrick Van Eecke. 2014. Legal aspects of text mining. Computer law & security review 30: 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Health, Education & Welfare. 1973. Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens, Report of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Government Accountability Office. 2013. Information Resellers. Consumer Privacy Framework Needs to Reflect Changes in Technology and the Marketplace, GAO-13-663.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 2013. A Review of the Data Broker Industry: Collection, Use, and Sale of Consumer Data for Marketing Purposes, 18 December 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volman, Yvo. 2004. Exploitation of public sector information in the context of the eEurope action plan. In Public sector information in the digital age eds. Aichholzer, Georg and Herbert Burkert, 93–107. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vrije Universiteit Brussel—Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS), Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Hans Lammerant & Paul De Hert

Authors
  1. Hans Lammerant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul De Hert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Lammerant .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS), Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Serge Gutwirth

  2. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ronald Leenes

  3. Law, Science, Technology and Society, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Paul De Hert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lammerant, H., De Hert, P. (2016). Visions of Technology. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P. (eds) Data Protection on the Move. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7376-8_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation