Source: http://docplayer.net/6545604-Contact-kostas-rossoglou-and-nuria-rodriguez-digital-beuc-eu.html
Timestamp: 2018-08-14 22:16:31
Document Index: 710919164

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 2', 'art. 3', 'art. 4', 'art. 11', 'art. 12', 'art. 13', 'art. 14', 'art. 17', 'art. 18', 'art. 19', 'art. 20', 'art. 21', 'art. 22', 'art. 23', 'art. 24', 'art. 25', 'art. 28', 'art. 31', 'art. 32', 'arts 35', 'art. 38', 'art. 39', 'Arts 40', 'Arts 46', 'Arts 55', 'Arts 73', 'art. 80', 'art. 81']

Contact: Kostas Rossoglou and Nuria Rodríguez - PDF
Contact: Kostas Rossoglou and Nuria Rodríguez
Download "Contact: Kostas Rossoglou and Nuria Rodríguez digital@beuc.eu"
1 Data Protection Proposal for a Regulation BEUC Position Paper Contact: Kostas Rossoglou and Nuria Rodríguez Ref.: X/2012/039-27/07/2012 BUREAU EUROPÉEN DES UNIONS DE CONSOMMATEURS AISBL DER EUROPÄISCHE VERBRAUCHERVERBAND Rue d Arlon 80, B-1040 Brussels Tel. +32 (0) Fax +32 (0) EC register for interest representatives: identification number
2 Summary The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) welcomes the European Commission s proposal for a Regulation 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). We agree with the general direction taken by the European Commission, acknowledging that while the objectives of Directive 95/46 remain relevant, a thorough review has become indispensable owing to the technological and social changes which have occurred in the digital environment. Overall, the draft Regulation addresses the main challenges and the shortcomings of the current framework with the aim of enhancing the rights of data subjects and restoring control over the processing of their own personal data, especially in light of constantly evolving ICT developments. Although the proposal in general constitutes a major improvement for individuals, a number of provisions still need to be clarified or modified to ensure the new EU framework is effective and becomes the global standard of personal data protection and privacy. Our key concerns and our suggestions to further improve the Commission s proposal are summarised below: General provisions Material scope (art. 2) We welcome the general scope of application. Yet, the exceptions to the scope should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty and uniform application of the Regulation: - the exception on activities related to national security should be further defined; - The exception on household activities should not apply when data is made available to an indefinite number of people. Territorial scope (art. 3) We welcome that the Regulation applies to controllers established in and outside of the European Union (when processing personal data in the EU). - For controllers established in the EU, the Regulation should address the issue of national applicable law. - For controllers not established in the EU, the application of the regulation to the monitoring of behaviour of data subjects must be clarified, to ensure that it includes tracking and profiling of data subjects as well as services which are based on monetizing the secondary use of consumers personal data. Definitions (art. 4) Personal data : 2
3 BEUC welcomes the broad definition of personal data as reflected in the proposal as it will provide the necessary flexibility in the light of rapid ICT developments. In order to ensure legal certainty, it should be clarified that when there is a close relation between the data and an individual that singles out the individual, this will trigger the application of data protection rules. Consent : BEUC welcomes recital 25 stating that consent can be given by any appropriate method and that electronic consent should not hinder the data subject s on line experience. There is no 'one size fits all' solution to the issue of consent but consent must always be meaningful. In addition, compliance with the principles for data processing including data minimization and purpose limitation needs to be ensured. Main establishment : We welcome the definition of main establishment of the controller. However, the regulation should address the case of undertakings with decentralized decision making structure: in these cases the main establishment of the group may be used as the determining factor, or alternatively the dominant influence of one establishment over the others. Transfer of personal data (new) A definition of what is to be considered as transfer of personal data needs to be introduced in relation to the exchange of data between companies in the same country and other types of exchanges on networks, such as servers of companies. Principles (Arts. 5, 6 and 7) BEUC welcomes the introduction of the principle of transparency and the strengthening of the data minimization principle; As regards the principle of purpose limitation, a clear definition of what is to be considered as compatible use with the initial purpose of processing needs to be introduced; Special categories of data The concept of legitimate interests of the data controller must be clearly defined; it should not be left to a delegated act, as there is a risk of surpassing the legal grounds; Personal data of a child and sensitive data (arts. 8 and 9) BEUC welcomes the requirement of parental consent for the processing of personal data of a child. However, verification procedures of parental consent should not lead to further processing of data which otherwise would not be necessary 3
4 to process. Rights of the data subject BEUC welcomes the prohibition of collection/processing of sensitive data as the general rule (article 9). The list of sensitive personal data must remain exhaustive and also include financial data revealing personal solvency. Transparency (art. 11) BEUC welcomes the new requirement that information has to be provided in an intelligible form and using clear and plain language. Modalities for exercising of rights (art. 12) BEUC welcomes the requirements in article 12 of the proposal: - Data controllers are required to respond to requests by data subjects without undue delay and no later than one month; - Data controllers will not be able to charge for the data subject s exercise of his rights, as long as this right is not abused. Rights in relation to recipients (art. 13) BEUC welcomes the introduction of an obligation for the data controller to notify each recipient (third parties) to whom data has been disclosed, in case of request of rectification or erasure by the data subject. Information to the data subject (art. 14) The list of information obligations of the controller is rather comprehensive. BEUC suggests adding the following items to the list: - the type of personal data collected and processed: - the procedures to lodge complaints; - whether processing is done for tracking and profiling purposes and its consequences on individuals; - which personal data is obligatory to provide and which is voluntary; - Where applicable, the information that personal data is collected in exchange for so-called free services. Right to be forgotten (art. 17) BEUC supports the intention of the Right to be forgotten which aims to strengthen the right to erase personal data. It should be made clear that the obligation to delete the consumer s data lies upon the controller of the information and not upon the downstream parties (host providers, search engines etc), in order to ensure the compatibility with the provisions on the liability of Internet Service Providers under the Directive on e-commerce. Right to data portability (art. 18) BEUC welcomes the introduction of the new right to data portability. The right to data portability allows the consumer 4
5 to be in control of his data and retain the ownership, by being able to shift the data to other services. Yet, for this right to be effectively implemented the development of interoperable or compatible standards is necessary. Right to object (art. 19) It should be clarified that the right to object, if upheld by the controller should result in the deletion of the data by the controller. Profiling (art. 20) BEUC welcomes the specific inclusion of profiling practices in the proposed regulation. In addition to the right not to be subject to profiling, consumers should be informed of the techniques and procedures used for profiling and the possible consequences of profiling techniques applied to them. Profiling of vulnerable consumers such as children should be prohibited. Controller and processor Restrictions (art. 21) BEUC considers that the conditions and guarantees under which the rights of the data subject may be restricted must be explicitly and further defined. Responsibility of the controller (art. 22) BEUC welcomes the provisions on controller s responsibility and accountability. However, the principle of accountability should not be perceived as an alternative to compliance with legal obligations or as an excuse to avoid administrative sanctions. Data protection by design and by default (art. 23) BEUC very much welcomes the introduction of the principles of data protection by design and by default; the following requirements should be added: - Reference to the use of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) should be introduced, as a tool to implement technical solutions to comply with the principle of data protection by design. - The principle of Data Protection by default should be revised to make it explicit that the privacy settings on services and products should by default comply with the general principles of data protection, such as data minimization and purpose limitation; - The data processor should also be obliged to implement privacy by design and privacy by default when processing personal data on behalf of the controller. Joint controllers (art. 24) BEUC welcomes the obligation of joint controllers to define their respective responsibilities for compliance with their obligations, by means of an arrangement between them. We would also suggest introducing the principle of joint responsibility between the controller and the processor. 5
6 Representatives of controllers not established in the Union (art. 25) BEUC welcomes the requirement for controllers not established in the EU to designate a representative in the Union. The representative is expected to be the contact point for both data protection authorities and the data subject. Any exceptions to this requirement must be fully justified or otherwise deleted. Documentation (art. 28) The obligation to maintain documentation as defined in this provision is welcome and should not be weakened: it includes the most relevant information which should ensure that controllers are able to demonstrate compliance upon request by the DPAs. Data breach notification (art. 31) BEUC welcomes the introduction of a horizontal data breach notification obligation. - Only those breaches that adversely affect the individual should be notified to data subjects. - BEUC supports a risk-based definition of the adverse effect of data breaches. - The notification to data protection authorities must take place as soon as possible without undue delay, and not beyond 72 hours after the controller becomes aware of the data breach. - A specific deadline must be introduced for the DPA to act on a breach notification, as well as a deadline within which the data controller should notify the breach to the data subject. Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) (art. 32) BEUC welcomes the introduction of the obligation to carry out an assessment of the impact on the protection of personal data of the processing operations that present specific risks. - A DPIA should also be carried out when processing operations are likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects; - The DPIA should be made publicly available, or at least a summary of it; DPIAs must be audited by Data Protection Authorities. Data Protection Officer (arts 35-37) BEUC welcomes the introduction of the obligation to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO). Only those entities that are processing personal data as an accessory activity could be excepted from this obligation. The independence of DPOs needs to be strengthened. 6
7 Exception for SMEs BEUC is opposed to the exceptions from specific obligations for enterprises with less than 250 employees. The determining factor for introducing an exception should not be the number of employees but the nature of the processing activities, the number of personal data involved and the number of data subjects the enterprise processes data about. Codes of conduct (art. 38) Self regulatory codes can only be endorsed if they entail an added value for consumers rights (by offering a higher level of protection), are backed up by suitably robust auditing or testing procedures and provide for independent and effective complaint handling and sanctions. Transfer to third countries Certification (art. 39) BEUC supports the establishment of EU certification schemes, including European Privacy Seals, as long as clear certification criteria are developed and the administration is entrusted to independent third party organisations. It is also important to clarify that the granting of a seal would not simply certify compliance with the law but also offer an added layer of protection. (Arts 40-45) BEUC welcomes the provisions on transfer of data to third countries. However, transfers should not be possible for those countries for which the European Commission has already adopted a decision not recognizing the adequate status. Derogations from adequate decisions or appropriate safeguards must only apply for a restricted number of cases of occasional transfer that cannot be qualified as frequent, massive or structural. Supervisory Authorities Disclosure of personal data to law enforcement authorities of third countries must only be possible upon prior authorization by the supervisory authority. (Arts 46-54) BEUC welcomes the provisions that require explicitly the independent status of supervisory authorities The establishment of a one stop shop for data controllers or processors might result in forum shopping; effective coordination between all relevant DPA should be ensured. Specific rules on the assignment of a lead authority when the controller is not established in the EU should also be defined. Specific rules of allocation of financial resources to DPAs must be introduced. 7
8 Cooperation and consistency (Arts 55-63) BEUC welcomes the focus of the draft Regulation on enhancing cooperation between data protection authorities; strengthening cooperation and coordination is crucial as a data breach may well affect data subjects in many countries across the EU and beyond. However, the possibilities to trigger the consistency mechanism go too far. There needs to be a threshold in the draft Regulation to ensure that the consistency mechanism only applies to processing that raises serious risks to data subjects across Europe. Remedies, liabilities and sanctions The powers of the European Commission within the consistency mechanism must be carefully drafted in order not to undermine the independence of DPAs. (Arts 73-79) Judicial collective actions for compensation by representative bodies should be introduced. Consumer organizations must be entitled to bring actions for breaches of data protection law. Specific situations Part of the fines imposed on companies should also be used to finance the actions of organizations defending the rights of data subjects. Processing of personal data and freedom of expression (art. 80) BEUC welcomes the exemption from the application of the regulation when personal data is processed for journalistic purposes or for the purpose of artistic and literacy expression. The notion of journalistic purposes should be clarified to include not only the traditional media, but also new activities whose object is the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas. Processing of personal data concerning health (art. 81) The use of sensitive health data for marketing purposes should remain prohibited. Tracking and profiling technologies in health related web sites should not be allowed. Only authorised and specifically trained health care professionals should be allowed to have access to patients health records. Delegated and implementing acts BEUC regrets that too many issues in the draft Regulation are left to be dealt with by delegated and implementing acts. The number of delegated and implementing acts should be cut down and limited to those provisions addressing non-essential issues, such as design requirements or criteria for technical measures. 8
9 Introduction The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) welcomes the European Commission s proposal for a Regulation 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). We agree with the general direction taken by the European Commission, acknowledging that while the objectives of Directive 95/46 remain relevant, a thorough review has become indispensable owing to the technological and social changes which have occurred in the digital environment. Overall, the draft Regulation addresses the main challenges and the shortcomings of the current framework with the aim of enhancing the rights of data subjects and restoring control over the processing of their own personal data, especially in light of constantly evolving ICT developments. The European Union needs a consolidated, general framework which applies across the board and which can then be complemented by more specific rules as necessary. The revision of the current framework also acknowledges the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. In fact, both the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights which recognise the fundamental rights to protection of personal data and privacy, will now need to be fully complied with by the EU institutions and Member States, acting within the scope of the EU law. Although the proposal in general constitutes a major improvement for individuals, a number of provisions still need to be clarified or modified to ensure the new EU framework is effective and becomes the global standard of personal data protection and privacy. The on-going revision should not result in the reduction of protection. BEUC wishes to highlight that the adoption of a user-centred approach and the placement of data subjects at the forefront of considerations constitutes a sine qua non requirement to achieve the objectives of the EU Digital Agenda, which aims to build consumer trust in the online environment. The revision should not be used as an opportunity to weaken fundamental principles of data protection. Consequently, the forthcoming revision must not result in a lower level of protection which would jeopardise the fundamental rights of individuals, citizens and consumers. On the contrary, the review is an opportunity to provide effective protection of consumers fundamental rights to the protection of their personal data and privacy as well as ensuring proper enforcement of the rules. It must also be borne in mind that the European framework for data protection has been used as a global standard and has provided a basis for the development of legislation in other countries. The EU should therefore respond to the expectations of citizens and consumers in Europe and beyond. 9
10 CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 2 Material scope Article 2 of the proposal defines the material scope of the regulation in the same terms as Directive 95/46: it applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means or to the processing of non-automatic means of personal data which forms part or is tended to form part of a filling system. However, the exceptions to the general scope are broader in the proposal than in the current Directive. While we do not oppose the exceptions, we assert that they must be better defined to avoid different interpretations and undue use of personal data in borderline cases. With regard to the exception of national security, we would like to highlight that the scope of this notion often differs from one Member State to another, which will undermine the uniform application. Thus, we think that the Regulation should introduce certain criteria which better define the extent of this exception. With regard to the exception of personal and household activities, we welcome the reference to the gainful interest as the main criterion for the application of the exception. The question of whether individuals processing data for personal and household activities is particularly important within a technological context, with individuals posting content online via social networking sites, blogging sites etc. We would however recommend including in Article 2 the elements of the definition of gainful interest provided in Recital 15, namely that the notion is linked to professional or commercial activity. Furthermore, the draft Regulation does not clarify the application of the exception when data is made available to an indefinite number of individuals. According to the case law of the European Court of Justice 1, the exception should only apply when the data is made available to a limited number of individuals. We would therefore suggest that the exception of Article 2.2.d be complemented with the criterion of indefinite number of people, thus clarifying that an indefinite number of individuals shall in principle mean that the household exception no longer applies Article 3 Territorial scope Article 3 deals with the territorial scope of the proposal, addressing when the data controller is established within or outside the European Union. Article 3.1 introduces the criterion of establishment in the EU to determine whether EU law would apply. However, the definition of the establishment, as the place where the main decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of processing are taken (Article 4.13) is not appropriate for undertakings with a decentralised decision making structure, such as where the locations of where central administration and management decisions on data processing differ. 1 See ECJ 6 November 2003, Lindquist and Satamedia, C-101/0. 10
11 Furthermore, Article 3.1 only provides for the application of EU law without any criteria to determine which national law shall apply. In principle this is logical as the Regulation is supposed to be a self-standing instrument. However, the Regulation leaves some scope for the application of national law in some of its provisions and Member States maintain the freedom to adopt specific legislation in a limited number of areas. The draft Regulation only provides for criteria to define the leading Data Protection Authority (Article 51) where several Member States are concerned, but does not address the issue of applicable national law. Article 3.2 refers to instances where the data controller is not established in the EU, but the processing activities are related to the offering of goods and services to data subjects residing in the EU or monitoring their behaviour. Compared to Article 3 of the current directive, this new provision takes away the criterion of use of equipment. BEUC welcomes the new criteria that will ensure that consumers will be protected against the collection and processing of their personal data by companies not established in the EU; the current criterion of equipment has often turned out to be an obstacle to the enforcement of European law against such companies. In order to ensure more legal certainty, we believe that further clarification is needed to ensure that the offering of goods and services also includes so-called free services, which are based on monetising the secondary use of consumers data 2. We would also suggest that the meaning of monitoring of behaviour is clarified to include tracking and profiling done by controllers outside the EU. For these provisions to deliver benefits to European consumers, effective enforcement mechanisms and procedures need to be in place. Article 4 Definitions Article 4.1- Definition of data subject (personal data) Compared to the present Directive, the criteria in the new proposal for the definition of personal data are transferred to the definition of data subject. The main elements of the definitions remain in place, which BEUC welcomes. We believe the broad definition in the proposal provides the necessary flexibility to be applied to different situations and developments affecting the fundamental right of privacy and data protection in the light of rapid ICT developments 3. It is equally important that the definition provides legal certainty as to when data is personal and the processing of which would be within the scope of the Regulation. In particular, BEUC welcomes the fact that the new proposal widens the definition by including the concepts of online identifiers and location data. However, the proposed new definition contrasts with the wording of recital 24, according to which identification numbers, location data, on line identifiers need not necessarily be considered as personal data in all circumstances. This sentence undermines the 2 Opinion 01/2012 on the data protection reform proposals by Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 3 The proposal follows the recommendations of the opinion of the 29 Data Protection Working Party: Opinion 7/2007 of 20 June
12 aim of the new definition, which is to cover any information or means allowing the identification of a data subject. As soon as the information allows the data controller to identify an individual, the information should be deemed personal data. BEUC thus proposes the last sentence of recital 24 to be redrafted clarifying that when there is a close relation between the information and an individual that singles out the individual; this will trigger the application of data protection rules. BEUC would caution against overstretching the application of data protection rules to every single situation where information is processed, but rather its application should depend on the specific context and on whether the information processed can be linked to a specific person. Article 4.8- Data subject s consent The draft Regulation establishes the consent of data subjects as one of the possible grounds for legitimising data processing. Article 4.8 requires consent to be freely given, specific, informed and explicit, while Article 7 establishes a number of conditions for consent, including placing the burden of proof on the controller that the consent requirements have been met. BEUC welcomes the provision in recital 25 that consent can be given by any appropriate method, which allows for a certain degree of flexibility, provided it is transparent and meaningful. We also endorse the requirement that the request to give consent in the online environment should not disrupt use of the service and should not hinder the data subject s online experience. BEUC recognises that there is no 'one size fits all' solution to the issue of consent, while the means of implementation of consent of consumers should be flexible and user-friendly. We believe that practices could be assessed against the following two criteria: An analysis of the potential consumer detriment linked to a specific practice/ technique. An evaluation of whether a practice/technique meets the 'reasonable expectations' of use of information by a typical consumer or by the average member of a group when directed to several consumers. Such an assessment will have to be done on a case by case basis. The definition of consumer expectations raises a number of challenges both in terms of the process to be followed but also in terms of constantly emerging new services, especially in the digital environment. We believe consumer associations have significant experience of deploying surveys, analysing consumer behaviour, using appropriate tools to determine consumer expectations of products and services and so can be instrumental in any regulatory work in this field. BEUC would suggest focusing on the requirement for consent to be meaningful, while it needs to be clearly stated that consent is only one of the legal grounds for processing and not necessarily the most appropriate one in all circumstances. For example, consent cannot be valid when the requirements of transparency and information have not been met, or when collection of personal data is unnecessary for consumers to access a specific service. Consent must not lead to further 12
13 processing of data which is otherwise unnecessary. Most importantly, compliance with the principles of data protection processing, including data minimisation and purpose limitation, needs to be ensured. Article Main establishment The main establishment is defined as the place where the main decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of processing are taken. However, this definition is inappropriate for undertakings by a decentralised decision making structure, where the locations of central administration and management decisions about data processing may differ. For those cases, the main establishment of the group may be used as the determining factor, or alternatively the dominant influence of one establishment over the others. Article 4.20 (new)- Transfer of personal data BEUC regrets that the draft proposal does not provide a definition of what is to be considered the transfer of personal data. The main questions arise in relation to the passing of data between companies in the same country and other types of exchanges on networks, such as servers of companies. In a number of Member States, such transfers are prohibited and therefore the omission of this rule from the draft Regulation would result in a significant decrease of consumer protection. CHAPTER II Principles Chapter II of the proposal deals with the principles of data processing and adds specific requirements for the collection and processing of data related to minors and of sensitive data. BEUC welcomes that the general principles of data processing are maintained in the proposal while significant improvements are put forward, in particular as regards the principle of transparency. Article 5 Principles relating to personal data processing BEUC welcomes the introduction of the principle of transparency in relation to the collection and processing of data. This reflects the stronger obligations put on the controller to inform data subjects (article 14 of the proposal) about the most relevant information regarding the processing, including the identify and the contact details of the controller, the purposes of the processing, the retention period, the existence of rights and the modalities to exercise them etc., as defined in Article 14. Lacks of transparency and information are major deterrents to users asserting their rights. If they do not know how their data is being used, for what purpose and by whom, they will not be in a position to exercise and enforce their rights. The proposal enhances the principle of data minimisation by giving it more visibility in a new paragraph(e). The strengthening of this principle is necessary in order to address the current trends of data harvesting and data mining used for profiling consumers and which involve large amounts of personal data being collected. 13
14 Many data controllers who are not in a contractual relationship with consumers retain data beyond the necessary time to perform the service. In the specific case of search engines, the Article 29 Working Party required search engine providers to delete or irreversibly anonymise personal data once they no longer serve the specified and legitimate purpose they were collected for and be capable of justifying retention and the longevity of cookies deployed at all times. The principle of data minimisation also mirrors the new principles of privacy by design and privacy by default. According to these, data protection principles need to be embedded in privacy-sensitive technologies and services from the beginning of their development. The principle of purpose limitation of data processing is of utmost importance in relation to the proliferation of business models which are construed on the basis of data sharing with third parties. The business models of many internet companies (e.g. some search engines, social networking sites ) are often incompatible with the principle of purpose limitation and the specification of use of personal data. Many companies collecting personal data transmit the data to third parties who process this data for purposes different to those initially pursued by the data controller and often without informing the data subject. BEUC regrets that the concept of compatibility (with the original purpose of processing) is undefined in the proposal. The criterion of compatibility has brought about divergences at national level due to its vagueness (without specification of what is compatible or incompatible). In a few countries the principle is defined in excessively broad terms undermining the very principle. In this regard, we think that the new regulation should include some criteria as to what is considered compatible, drawing on best practices of the way compatibility has been interpreted at national level. Article 6 Lawfulness of processing Article 6 of the proposal reproduces the grounds for processing present in the current Directive. The processing of personal data is lawful when at least one of the following applies: a) The data subject has given its consent to the processing, b) Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract, c) Processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation, d) Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject, e) Processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of a public authority vested on the controller, f) Processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interest of the data controller unless such interest contrasts with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. Compared to the existing directive, the proposal contains a few, but very important, novelties. The most welcome changes relate to the definition and the conditions for consent (Article 7) as well as the provision on the processing of personal data of a child (Article 8). 14
15 When processing is based either on controller s compliance with a legal obligation or on the public interest, the basis for the processing will have to be provided either in EU law or the national law of a Member State (Article 6.3). This provision is very important as it excludes the law of a non EU country as the legal basis, as would be the case where processing of personal data of EU residents may be required for law enforcement purposes by third countries. BEUC is concerned that unless properly defined, the general notion of legitimate interests of the controller might open the door to abusive processing. The concept of legitimate purposes is vague and subjective. This concept should be defined clearly in the proposal and should not be left to a delegated act, as there is a risk of surpassing the legal grounds. Article 7 Conditions for consent The draft Regulation establishes data subject s consent as one of the possible grounds for legitimising data processing. Article 7 establishes a number of conditions for consent, including the burden of proof on the controller to demonstrate that the consent requirements have been met. BEUC welcomes the provision in recital 25 that consent can be given by any appropriate method, which allows for a certain degree of flexibility, as well as the provision that the request to give consent in the online environment should not be disruptive to the use of the service and should not hinder the data subject s online experience of the service. As stated above, there is no 'one size fits all' solution to the issue of consent, while the means of implementation of consent should be flexible, user-friendly and ensure it is meaningful when it is given. We are satisfied that Article 7 puts the burden of proof of the consent on the controller. Thus the controller should pay special attention to the reliability of the means used to obtain consent of the data subject in accordance with recital 25. We also welcome the inclusion of the right to withdraw consent at any time. However, for consent to be valid, the conditions of informed, specific and free will have to be met. The draft regulation provides examples of cases where consent cannot be valid due to a lack of balance between the parties, for instance in the employment sector. We highlight however that the lack of balance is present also in other sectors such as the insurance sector where often the benefit of special conditions is tied to the consent of the consumer to the processing of his/her data; recital 34 should thus add the insurance sector as an example of possible lack of balance. As regards the informed consent, the data subject should receive clear and understandable information (in a concise manner) on key elements which are defined in Article 14. We are also concerned that under the proposal, the consumer may be requested to provide consent once that would cover multiple data processing operations. It is questionable whether the consumer is able to deduce the consequences and understand the implications. 15
16 Article 8 - Processing of the personal data of a child BEUC welcomes the new provision in Article 8 requiring parental consent for the processing of personal data of a child. In particular in the online environment minors do not always have the knowledge to realise the consequences of the collection or processing of their personal data. The internet and new technologies offer ever wider possibilities for children to share data (photos, videos, messages, localisation information through blogs, videos, social networks ) which, combined with the lack of awareness of the risks and dangers of data collecting, make children and teenagers the most vulnerable group in the digital world. However, we see a number of problems regarding the implementation of the obligation of parental consent. First, the threshold of 13 years old might conflict with national laws relating to the legal capacity to conclude a contract, the processing of data occurring very often in the context of a contractual relationship. Second, the obligation to develop means to verify the legitimacy of parental consent, should not lead to further processing of data which otherwise would not be necessary to process. We also think that the criteria and modalities for the parental consent should not be totally left to delegated acts of the Commission; some criteria should be included in the regulation itself. In addition this provision seems to apply only in the context of the offering of information society services. The meaning of offering information society services seems to be too restrictive and it should be clarified; the provision should apply to any processing of personal data of a child both on and off-line. Article 9 - Processing of special categories of personal data We welcome the prohibition of the collection or processing of sensitive data as referred to in Article 9.1 of the proposal. BEUC believes that the list of sensitive personal data must be exhaustive to ensure legal certainty and avoid divergent implementation at national level. However, we put forward that financial data which reveals personal solvency should also be added to the list of Article 9.2 Other forms of financial data such as unpaid debts of clients to the company with which it is or has been in a contractual relationship would not make part of this category. Finally, we believe that the specificities, conditions and safeguards for the processing of sensitive data should not be left to delegated acts of the Commission; sensitive data requires an additional layer of protection and thus the conditions for their processing need to be clarified in the regulation. Alternatively, this could be the object of opinions or reports of the European Data Protection Board. 16
17 CHAPTER III Rights of the data subject Article 11 Transparent information and communication Lack of transparency and lack of clear information is a major deterrent to users in the assertion of their rights. Consumers rarely understand privacy notices which are generally too lengthy. The privacy policies of many online service providers include complex and legal terms which fail to comply with the principles of transparency and fairness, aiming exclusively at complying with legal requirements rather than informing consumers. They are often obscure on issues where clear explanations matter the most, for instance on the question of whether data is shared with or sold to third parties, who these third parties are and what they intend to do with the data, the use of cookies and other data collecting technologies and data retention limits. Privacy policies are not always easy to spot on websites, while they may not be updated once they are published, even when the content and the nature of the service have evolved. According to different surveys, although consumers are concerned about their privacy, they do not view privacy policies as a suitable way to understand and answer their privacy concerns. These findings are confirmed by behavioural economics considerations, which show that consumers do not read privacy notices and are prone to accept default settings. According to the figures provided by the Eurobarometer 4 64% of users feel that information on the processing of their data is unsatisfactory. According to a study by the Norwegian Consumer Council 5, 73% of users aged years seldom read Terms of privacy notices while the research carried out by Which? in March 2010 found that only 6% adults aged 16+ with internet access questioned have read the privacy policies of websites The proposal significantly strengthens the information obligations of the controller to the data subject (Articles 11, 12 and 13). We in particular welcome the new requirement that information has to be provided in an intelligible form while using clear and plain language. We also support the regulation of procedures for providing the information to the data subjects as this will strengthen accountability of the controller vis-à-vis the data subject. 4 Eurobarometer survey on data protection in the EU - citizens perceptions, February
18 Article 12 Procedures and mechanisms for exercising the rights of the data subject BEUC welcomes the introduction of specific modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject. Data controllers should respond to requests by data subjects without undue delay and no later than one month. Furthermore, data controllers should not be able to charge a data subject for access to his own personal data, as long as this right is not abused. As regards the right to correct, erase and delete data, it should always remain free of charge, as it is also to the benefit of the data controller to have correct and updated data. Article 13 Rights in relation to recipients BEUC welcomes the introduction of an obligation for the data controller to notify each recipient to whom data has been disclosed in case of rectification or erasure, as long as it is possible without a disproportionate effort. This provision is particularly important in the online environment, where data can be easily shared with third parties and therefore inaccuracies need to be corrected. However, we are concerned as regards the exception in cases where such communication would involve a disproportionate effort (Article 13.5.c). Such a broad and subjective condition cannot be justified, as it will always be the case that providing information might require an effort by the data controller. Article 14 - Information to the data subject Article 14 sets up a list of all the information the data controller is obliged to give to the data subject when his personal data has been collected. Overall this provision is comprehensive and encompasses the relevant information the data subject needs to have. However, information about the type of personal data collected and processed is currently missing from the list and should be added. We particularly welcome the new obligation of the data controller to inform the data subject of his right to lodge a complaint to the supervisory authority and the contact details, reflecting the new right of the data subject to directly lodge complaints (Article 15.1 [f]). However, data subjects also need to know about the procedures to lodge such complaints; this should be added to the text - often consumers are not aware of the procedural steps to lodge complaints. In addition, this provision should echo the inclusion of a specific article dealing with profiling (Article 20) by requiring information about tracking and profiling purposes and its consequences on individuals to be added under Article 14.1 b. Regarding the exceptions to the information obligations listed in Article 14.5, we think that the exception in Article 14.5b (when the information to the data subject proves impossible or carries a disproportionate effort) should be better defined in the regulation, instead of letting the Commission adopt delegated acts to specify such exception. The provision of information will always require an effort from the data controller, which he may claim is disproportionate. 18
19 It is equally important to inform the data subject which personal data is obligatory to provide and which is voluntary. As regards services whose business model is based on monetising the use of consumers personal data in exchange for so-called free services, it should be made crystal clear to the consumer that this exchange is taking place, while the processing of data should comply with the general principles of data minimisation, purpose limitation etc. We support the reference to standard forms to lay out the information provided to the data subject, but we think this should be a requisite rather than optional. Standard forms generally offer better and more structured information to consumers. We also think that the new European Data Protection Board (EDPB) should take the lead in developing such standard privacy notices alongside consumer representatives and businesses. Finally, the possibility for data controllers to present the information by using multilayered notices should be expressly allowed. Article 15 - Right of access for the data subject Article 15 includes a list of information obligations in relation to the right of the data subject to access at any time the processed data. Compared to the current Directive, the addition of the obligation to inform about the right to lodge a complaint with the supervisory authority and its contact details (15.1 (f)) is very welcome. Yet, as said above, data subjects should also be informed about the procedures to lodge complaints. Consumers cannot fully benefit from their rights if they are not informed about the ways to complain and to obtain redress where there have been infringements. Article 17 - Right to be forgotten and to erasure The digital print left by individuals when personal data is processed online is problematic for consumers; consumers may well wish to erase the traces they leave behind on the Web at one point in time. The consumer should be able to delete the information provided to a company when the data is no longer necessary or when he withdraws consent. BEUC supports the intention of the right to be forgotten which aims to strengthen the right to erase personal data. Even though the right of erasure is included in the current directive, its application in the online environment is very often ignored. The new Article 17 should allow better enforcement of the existing right of erasure in the digital environment. Indeed, according to the new proposal the controller will be held liable in case he has made the personal data public or has authorised the processing of the data by third parties. 19
20 Users have the right to expect online companies to delete their personal information upon request. For example, users of social network services, services, and other similar services should not worry that companies will retain their information after they are no longer users of the service. With respect to search companies, users might also reasonably expect that personal information, acquired by the company for commercial gain, should not be republished where the user has made an explicit request. However, we consider the naming ( forgotten ) to be misleading as the limitations of a right to be forgotten are manifold and have to be acknowledged. It should be made clear that the obligation to delete the consumer s data lies upon the controller of the information and not the downstream parties (host providers, search engines etc.), in order to ensure compatibility with the provisions on the liability of Internet Service Providers under the Directive on e-commerce. The implementation and enforcement of the right to be forgotten must not result in the application of technical measures resulting in the filtering of online communications. The relationship with the provisions of the e-commerce Directive on the liability of information service providers needs to be carefully assessed. Moreover, in many cases it would be impossible to inform all parties to whom data has been disclosed and track down all possible links and copies of data. In this regard, Article 17.2 should be understood in the sense that only an obligation of effort is imposed on the controller and not an obligation of result. To this end, different metadata techniques which could convey the information regarding the appropriate use of the data could be used. Finally, the requirements, conditions and criteria for the implementation of the right to be forgotten should not be left to delegated acts of the Commission but should be defined in the regulation. Article 18 - Right to data portability BEUC very much welcomes the introduction of the new right to data portability in the proposal (Article 18). In the online environment, consumers store huge amounts of information (e.g. social networks, services ). At present, consumers are too often locked-in to online services and platforms with no possibility of transferring this data onto other (competing) platforms. Existing terms and services appear to be mostly unfair in this regard: often service providers claim ownership of the data stored in their services. This situation is incompatible with the right of consumers to be in control of their data and to object to the processing of their data. It also hinders competition among service providers and prevents switching. The right to data portability allows the consumer to be in control of his data and retain the ownership, by being able to shift the data to other services. 20