Moving Forward Together

C. Kuner, F. Cate, C. Millard, D. Svantesson
{"title":"Moving Forward Together","authors":"C. Kuner, F. Cate, C. Millard, D. Svantesson","doi":"10.1093/IDPL/IPR005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As 2010 wore to a close, major reports on privacy were released almost simultaneously in the European Union and USA. The first, published on 4 November, came from the European Commission, ‘A Comprehensive Approach on Personal Data in the European Union’. The following month two US agencies released privacy reports. The Federal Trade Commission’s report, ‘Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers’, appeared on 1 December, and two weeks later the US Department of Commerce released its green paper on ‘Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework’. These three significant and long-awaited government reports provide new insights into how regulators on both sides of the Atlantic view privacy challenges and the extent to which those views may be converging. In fact, many observers were surprised by the extent to which the three reports overlap. For example, all three reports are prompted by similar issues and address similar problems—mainly, that current approaches to data protection have become ineffective in response to the rapid expansion in information technologies and applications. All three reports explicitly recognize the tension between innovation and intrusion and acknowledge both the value and risks of information flows. Notice and choice, particular hallmarks of US privacy protection, but also found in European laws, come in for special (and well-deserved) criticism, especially in the EU and FTC reports. All three reports stress the importance of not over-focusing on notice and choice and ensuring that, when presented, notices are clear, concise, and simple to use. The reports also recognize the importance of industry responsibility, self-regulation, and international cooperation in enforcement. All three focus new attention on accountability, rather than mere compliance, as a principled basis for data protection. And all three reports were issued in draft form and specifically invited public comment, reflecting the fundamental importance of individual and industry participation in formulating workable privacy policies. These and other similarities appear to reflect growing convergence in transatlantic thinking about data protection issues. In fact, elements of each report sound themes historically associated with regulators on the other side of the Atlantic. The EU report reflects concerns about the burden of complying with data protection laws, the tension between protecting privacy and not stifling innovation, inconsistency among member state laws, and the practicality of current restrictions on international transfers of data—concerns that seasoned privacy observers might find more reminiscent of US regulators. Meanwhile, the FTC and Commerce reports expand the range of privacy principles to which companies might be held accountable, the data that might raise privacy issues (even if no unique identifiers are involved), and interests that should be protected—all points traditionally associated with European regulators. The reports are, of course, not the only sign of convergence. The FTC joined with twelve European and other regulators in March 2010 to launch the Global Privacy Enforcement Network to facilitate multinational cooperation in enforcing privacy laws. In October, the FTC was officially admitted to the annual conference of data protection and privacy commissioners. Department of Commerce officials have been","PeriodicalId":312849,"journal":{"name":"Multi-Tiered Systems of Support in Elementary Schools","volume":"191 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multi-Tiered Systems of Support in Elementary Schools","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IDPL/IPR005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

As 2010 wore to a close, major reports on privacy were released almost simultaneously in the European Union and USA. The first, published on 4 November, came from the European Commission, ‘A Comprehensive Approach on Personal Data in the European Union’. The following month two US agencies released privacy reports. The Federal Trade Commission’s report, ‘Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers’, appeared on 1 December, and two weeks later the US Department of Commerce released its green paper on ‘Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework’. These three significant and long-awaited government reports provide new insights into how regulators on both sides of the Atlantic view privacy challenges and the extent to which those views may be converging. In fact, many observers were surprised by the extent to which the three reports overlap. For example, all three reports are prompted by similar issues and address similar problems—mainly, that current approaches to data protection have become ineffective in response to the rapid expansion in information technologies and applications. All three reports explicitly recognize the tension between innovation and intrusion and acknowledge both the value and risks of information flows. Notice and choice, particular hallmarks of US privacy protection, but also found in European laws, come in for special (and well-deserved) criticism, especially in the EU and FTC reports. All three reports stress the importance of not over-focusing on notice and choice and ensuring that, when presented, notices are clear, concise, and simple to use. The reports also recognize the importance of industry responsibility, self-regulation, and international cooperation in enforcement. All three focus new attention on accountability, rather than mere compliance, as a principled basis for data protection. And all three reports were issued in draft form and specifically invited public comment, reflecting the fundamental importance of individual and industry participation in formulating workable privacy policies. These and other similarities appear to reflect growing convergence in transatlantic thinking about data protection issues. In fact, elements of each report sound themes historically associated with regulators on the other side of the Atlantic. The EU report reflects concerns about the burden of complying with data protection laws, the tension between protecting privacy and not stifling innovation, inconsistency among member state laws, and the practicality of current restrictions on international transfers of data—concerns that seasoned privacy observers might find more reminiscent of US regulators. Meanwhile, the FTC and Commerce reports expand the range of privacy principles to which companies might be held accountable, the data that might raise privacy issues (even if no unique identifiers are involved), and interests that should be protected—all points traditionally associated with European regulators. The reports are, of course, not the only sign of convergence. The FTC joined with twelve European and other regulators in March 2010 to launch the Global Privacy Enforcement Network to facilitate multinational cooperation in enforcing privacy laws. In October, the FTC was officially admitted to the annual conference of data protection and privacy commissioners. Department of Commerce officials have been
共同前进
随着2010年接近尾声,欧盟和美国几乎同时发布了有关隐私的主要报告。第一份于11月4日发布,来自欧盟委员会,“欧盟个人数据综合方法”。接下来的一个月,两家美国机构发布了隐私报告。美国联邦贸易委员会的报告《在快速变化的时代保护消费者隐私:企业和政策制定者的建议框架》于12月1日发布,两周后,美国商务部发布了其绿皮书《互联网经济中的商业数据隐私和创新:动态政策框架》。这三份期待已久的重要政府报告提供了新的视角,让我们了解大西洋两岸的监管机构如何看待隐私挑战,以及这些观点可能在多大程度上趋同。事实上,许多观察人士对这三份报告的重叠程度感到惊讶。例如,所有三份报告都是由类似的问题引起的,并解决了类似的问题——主要是,当前的数据保护方法在应对信息技术和应用的迅速扩展方面已经变得无效。这三份报告都明确地认识到创新和入侵之间的紧张关系,并承认信息流的价值和风险。“注意”和“选择”是美国隐私保护的特别标志,但也存在于欧洲法律中,受到了特别的(也是理所应当的)批评,尤其是在欧盟和美国联邦贸易委员会的报告中。这三份报告都强调了不过度关注通知和选择的重要性,并确保在提交通知时,通知清晰、简洁、易于使用。报告还认识到行业责任、自我监管和国际执法合作的重要性。这三个国家都把新的注意力集中在问责制上,而不仅仅是合规,作为数据保护的原则基础。这三份报告都以草案形式发布,并特别征求公众意见,反映了个人和行业参与制定可行隐私政策的根本重要性。这些和其他相似之处似乎反映了大西洋两岸在数据保护问题上的思维日益趋同。事实上,每一份报告的内容都与历史上与大西洋彼岸的监管机构有关。欧盟的报告反映了对遵守数据保护法的负担、保护隐私与不抑制创新之间的紧张关系、成员国法律之间的不一致,以及当前对国际数据转移限制的实用性的担忧——经验丰富的隐私观察人士可能会发现,这些担忧更容易让人想起美国监管机构。与此同时,联邦贸易委员会和商务部的报告扩大了公司可能被追究责任的隐私原则的范围,可能引起隐私问题的数据(即使不涉及唯一标识符),以及应该受到保护的利益——所有这些传统上都与欧洲监管机构有关。当然,这些报告并不是趋同的唯一迹象。2010年3月,联邦贸易委员会与12个欧洲和其他监管机构联合成立了全球隐私执法网络,以促进在执行隐私法方面的跨国合作。今年10月,美国联邦贸易委员会正式获准参加数据保护和隐私专员年度会议。商务部官员一直在
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信