## 1 Introduction
### Data Sharing vs. Data Protection  
This paper does not specifically target the core components of knowledge management and information sharing. Indeed [PERSON] _et al._[15] observed that research on knowledge sharing focuses on knowledge forms (tacit/explicit) and on the processes and technology that support (or prevent) knowledge sharing. It rather reflects on the sharing of public information (the supply side from the public administrations) and on the access to public information (the demand side from citizens, groups, lobbies and other public administrations). Although I will not enter into an in-depth discussion of the concepts of access to information and transparency, let me mention a few key issues to be taken into account when developing the analysis framework. Most scholars and practitioners do not contend the idea of public data sharing, and some state that this is essential for a working democracy, along with [PERSON] [16], who called upon [PERSON] and his \"information as currency of democracy\" to declare that \"the public must know what information is available from which government body, and how and where this can be located...\". This is also the case in many national regulations around the world. In 2006, 70 countries had passed Freedom of Information Acts or access to information laws and 50 additional countries were in the process of doing so [17]. However the existence of a legal framework does not guarantee access to information per se: The Open Society Justice Initiative [18] shows that in countries with freedom of information laws, only 33% of the requests for information were fulfilled (with another 38% receiving no answer at all). Furthermore the existence of laws on access to information does not \"necessarily contribute to the perceptions of transparency of government policymaking\" [19]. This might be changing slowly, as [PERSON] [20] emphasized that \"data sharing... has required a shift in cultural norms in public sector organizations\" and noted that \"the mindset of government is for data sharing to take precedence over privacy\". On the other hand, many countries also have laws on data protection or on privacy. Although the origin of the concept of privacy dates back to [PERSON], thinkers such as [PERSON] [21] and [PERSON] [22] further defined the concept. Later on [PERSON] [23] developed his theory on the control of information. For him, privacy is \"the claim of individuals, groups or institutions to determine for themselves when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others\". This approach has become the basis of many pieces of data protection legislation, although it is still relatively new; according to [PERSON] and [PERSON] [24], the German Federal Constitutional Court \"invented the new basic right of informational self-determination\" in 1984. The authors furthermore argue that this right constitutes the legal basis for data protection in Germany and explain that it is grounded in the work of sociological systems theorist [PERSON]. Nonetheless data protection and privacy are perceived rather differently in different regions of the world (e.g., in China, in the United States of America and in Europe). Regarding the dimensions of personal data protection, this framework is focused on European practices; they might be quite heterogeneous but there is a directive of the European Union that sets the stage. In a survey on the implementation of this European Union Directive 95/46/EC on data protection [25], [PERSON] _et al._ discuss various legal issues pertaining to the processing of personal data, among which are:  
* The obligation to notify a given authority when personal data are processed and the categories of exceptions, e.g., when specifically mentioned in the legislation;
* The rights of the person to be notified and to access his/her own data;
* Data sharing between administrations using an identifier, with or without a supervisory authority.