Abstract
Data protection law as of now is subject to new challenges evoked by the digitalisation of industrial production, the so-called Industry 4.0. It stands for a high degree of connectivity between production systems involving more processing of more personal data. Data protection law is expected to strike a balance between protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals and allowing socially beneficial and desired processing. However, when laws are applied in contexts they were not designed for, they create conflicts. This article illuminates possible incompatibility between the general thrust of data protection law as of now and Industry 4.0 in three regards: concerning the scope of application of the law, its principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation and the collaboration between the numerous involved different parties exchanging the relevant data. Under what is envisioned as “data protection 4.0”, it explores instruments that serve to ease such tensions: anonymisation and pseudonymisation, data ownership rights, reinterpreted data protection principles, and codes of conduct. Lastly, it evaluates the role of collaboration and standardisation under a Common Legal Platform in data protection 4.0.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Wiebe (2016), p. 877 ff.
- 2.
For discussion cf. Bitkom (Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und Neue Medien e.V.) Rechtsfragen der digitalisierten Wirtschaft: Datenrechte, September 2019, Langfassung, p. 1, https://www.bitkom.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/bitkom-stellungnahme-zu-datenrechten_langfassung_final_0.pdf. Accessed 08 October 2019 (only available in German).
- 3.
Cf. Petri, in: Simitis et al. (eds) (2019), Art. 28 Rn. 33.
- 4.
Konferenz der unabhängigen Datenschutzbehörden des Bundes und der Länder und Verband der Automobilindustrie (2016), p. 2 Datenschutzrechtliche Aspekte bei der Nutzung vernetzter und nicht vernetzter Kraftfahrzeuge, https://www.vda.de/dam/vda/Medien/DE/Themen/Innovation-und-Technik/Vernetzung/Gemeinsame-Erkl-rung-VDA-und-Datenschutzbeh-rden-2016/Gemeinsame-Erklaerung-VDA-und-Datenschutzbehoerden-2016.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2019 (only available in German).
- 5.
Cf. Martini, in: Paal and Pauly (eds) (2018), Art. 28 Rn. 2.
- 6.
Cf. Petri, in: Simitis et al. (eds) (2019), Art. 28 Rn. 3.
- 7.
Cf. Art. 29 Working Group (2014) Opinion 05/2014 on Anonymisation Techniques, 0829/14/EN, WP 216, p. 7, https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp216_en.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2019.
- 8.
Art. 29 Working Group 2014 (fn. 7), p. 7.
- 9.
Cf. Art. 29 Working Group 2014 (fn. 7), p. 9.
- 10.
Cf. Art. 29 Working Group 2014 (fn. 7), p. 11.
- 11.
European Commission (2017) Study on emerging issues of data ownership, interoperability, (re-) usability and access to data, and liability, p. 5, http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=51485. Accessed 25 June 2019.
- 12.
Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb (2016) Ausschließlichkeits- und Zugangsrechte an Daten – Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 16. August 2016 zur aktuellen europäischen Debatte, p. 7, https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/stellungnahmen/MPI-Stellungnahme_Daten_2016_08_16_final.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2019 (only available in German).
- 13.
Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb (2017), p. 4 Argumente gegen ein “Dateneigentum”, https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/forschung/Argumentarium_Dateneigentum_de.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2019 (only available in German).
- 14.
Cf. Specht and Rohmer (2016), p. 127 ff.
- 15.
- 16.
Roßnagel, in: Simitis et al. (eds) (2019), Art. 5 Rn. 122.
- 17.
Roßnagel, in: Simitis et al. (eds) (2019), Art. 5 Rn. 123.
- 18.
- 19.
Herbst, in: Kühling and Buchner (eds) (2018), Art. 5 Rn. 56.
- 20.
Roßnagel, in: Simitis et al. (eds) (2019), Art. 5 Rn. 125 ff.
- 21.
Roßnagel, in: Simitis et al. (eds) (2019), Art. 40 Rn. 4.
- 22.
Cf. Paal, in: Paal and Pauly (eds) (2018), Art. 40 Rn. 15.
- 23.
Paal, in: Paal and Pauly (eds) (2018), Art. 40 Rn. 3.
References
Culik N, Döpke C (2017) Zweckbindungsgrundsatz gegen unkontrollierten Einsatz von Big Data-Anwendungen –Analyse möglicher Auswirkungen der DS-GVO. ZD 2017:226–230
Kühling J, Buchner B (eds) (2018) Datenschutz-Grundverordnung/BDSG. Beck, München
Paal BP, Pauly DA (eds) (2018) Datenschutz-Grundverordnung – Bundesdatenschutzgesetz. Beck, München
Simitis S, Hornung G, Spiecker gen. Döhmann I (eds) (2019) Datenschutzrecht – DSGVO mit BDSG. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Specht L, Rohmer R (2016) Zur Rolle des informationellen Selbstbestimmungsrechts bei der Ausgestaltung eines möglichen Ausschließlichkeitsrechts an Daten. PinG 2016:127–132
Wiebe A (2016) Protection of industrial data – a new property right for the digital economy? GRUR Int:877–884
Wolff HA, Brink S (eds) (2019) BeckOK Datenschutzrecht. Beck, München
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Freiherr von dem Bussche, A. (2020). Data Protection 4.0 for Industry 4.0. In: Jacob, K., Schindler, D., Strathausen, R. (eds) Liquid Legal. Law for Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48266-4_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48266-4_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48265-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48266-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)