Right to be Forgotten

European Regulator

In response to the panel’s presentations, parliamentarians from Germany and Poland ask for the floor. They discuss, among other things, the fact that the European institution are not cover by the proposal (which the German parliamentarian Gerald Reichenbach consider unacceptable) and the processing of data from children. In a discussion between Rizzared Kalisz of the Polish Sejm and the aforementioned Hornung discusses the geographical scope of the Regulation (Article 3).

 Kalisz asks what exactly providing services from outside the European Union to EU citizens and protecting EU citizens from third countries entail, in view of the many immigrants from the east in Poland. He suspects that it will be difficult for citizens from outside the EU to exercise their right and foresees that European regulator will be confront with additional cost.

Also read: right to be forgotten process

European Commission

Merit ell Bated Lamina expresses concerns on behalf of the Spanish Parliament about the consequences of the one-stop shop . This should not have the consequence that the regulator you have to turn to as a citizen becomes more distant from the citizens, especially not if there is a high-quality national regulator with good powers, such as in Spain. Rodriguez refutes this fear that citizens should go to someone other than the national regulator, but argues that lesson must be learn from the experience of consumer protection authority and that it must be ensure that citizen have the right to turn to their own regulator.

MEPs Birgit Sipped (DE, S&D), Timothy Kirk hope (UK, ECR) and Sarah Ledford (UK, ALDE) also asked to speak. Referring to the recommendation of the Council of Europe, Sipped asks questions about profiling and the usefulness of rewarding good behavior by companies, Kirk hope describes in an appealing way that we are moving towards a world in which half of the people spend their time on handing over data and the other half on processing this data, while Ledford argues that the European Commission is blind to the fact that profiling itself is a problem.

Opening by the Vice-President of the European Commission, Viviane Reding

The afternoon session will be open by the Vice-President of the European Commission, Viviane Redding. As European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, she is responsible for the proposals. Redding emphasizes that the core aim of the proposed directive and regulation is to build citizens’ confidence in protecting their privacy in a digitized world. At the moment, she says, this confidence is waning. 

The perception is that technology leads to an invasion of privacy. In addition, the current fragmentation of data protection leads to unnecessary costs for business. This limits the competitiveness of the common market. The General Data Protection Regulation puts an end to the current fragmentation of data protection in the European Union. That is why we have opted for a regulation and not a directive.

Also read: right to be forgotten

Data Minimization

The Commissioner then explain that a conscious decision. Was made not to distinguish between the processing of data in the public and private sector. This distinction is often not clear at all. The new regulations do of course allow for differentiation for the performance of public tasks. And identify a number of sectors in which a different approach is allow. As long as the following basic principle applicable to everyone are observe: purpose limitation data minimization. The provision for right of the data subject and privacy by design. Member States and therefore also national parliaments continue to play a role. According to the Commissioner for example in the trade-off between freedom of expression and data protection.

Also read: gdpr case studies

Member State

She emphasizes that alternatives, such as a sector-specific approach or codes of conduct, will again lead to fragmentation. The Commissioner also says that no European umbrella authority for data protection will be establish. This is a conscious choice ampere review between national supervisors is a good alternative, according to Redding. It states that the European Commission will intervene only in extreme cases in the context. Of the conformity assessment (Chapter VII, Section 2 of the draft regulation). For example if a national authority cannot reach a decision.

The directive relates to the exchange of information within national borders as well as across national borders. Before information is collect, the police and the judiciary cannot foresee. Whether the data will be exchange with third country and the creation of two database is inefficient. Finally the Commissioner emphasize that Member States are oblige to bring any bilateral agreements. With other Member State into line with the Directive (Article 60). The Member States have 5 years to do this. In the interest of national security, information may be exchange directly with third country without restriction. The Commissioner expects negotiation on the package of measure to be conclude possibly in July under the Irish presidency. She emphasizes that she wants to treat the regulation and the directive as one package.