Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The European Union as Guardian of Internet Privacy pp 77–123Cite as

Internet and Loss of Control in an Era of Big Data and Mass Surveillance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1809 Accesses

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((ISDP,volume 31))

Abstract

This chapter describes certain developments in the internet economy and in communications on the internet that affect the safeguarding of privacy and data protection of individuals and identifies challenges for privacy and data protection on the internet. It depicts the internet as a single unfragmented space with a loose government structure. Freedom on the internet is a great good, yet it is under threat in a reality where big companies and governments exercise wide powers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Based on the introduction of Hijmans and Kranenborg in: Hielke Hijmans and Herke Kranenborg, Data Protection Anno 2014: How to Restore Trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia, 2014.

  2. 2.

    Svantesson for instance includes security difficulties as significant change in the online environment; see: Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Extraterritoriality in Data Privacy Law, Ex Tuto Publishing 2013, at 46.

  3. 3.

    Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, Preface.

  4. 4.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century, COM (2012), 9 final.

  5. 5.

    See, e.g., Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, with reference to the title of the book and various sections on the information society. This chapter of the book mainly uses the term information society.

  6. 6.

    Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, as summarised in the conclusion, e.g. at 500.

  7. 7.

    OECD Guide to Measuring the Information Society 2011, at 14, available on: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/en/browse/title-detail/OECD-Guide-to-Measuring-the-Information-Society-2011/?K=5KGDZVDJ27BQ.

  8. 8.

    In the era of Reagan and Thatcher or The Real New Economic Order, as described in Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2012, Chapter 12.

  9. 9.

    Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009; Manuel Castells, “A Network Theory of Power”, International Journal of Communication, 5, pp. 773–787, 2011. See also: Yochai Benkler, “Networks of Power, Degrees of Freedom”, International Journal of Communication, 5 (2011), Harvard Law School, pp. 721–755.

  10. 10.

    Wording taken from Wikipedia; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data. Further read: Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective, Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST Report), available on: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf.

  11. 11.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.

  12. 12.

    Further read on mass surveillance: Hijmans and Kranenborg, in: Hielke Hijmans and Herke Kranenborg (eds), Data Protection Anno 2014: How to Restore Trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia, 2014.

  13. 13.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238, at 37.

  14. 14.

    This is connected to the argument in this book that privacy remains important in the information society. See mainly Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.

  15. 15.

    Prins, in: Hijmans and Kranenborg, Data Protection Anno 2014: How to Restore Trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia, 2014, at 27.

  16. 16.

    Wording taken from Wikipedia; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet. See also: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Internet Policy and Governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance, COM/2014/072 final.

  17. 17.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Internet Policy and Governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance, COM/2014/072 final, at 1.

  18. 18.

    Jovan Kurbalija, Introduction to DiploFoundation, 2014), at 9–10.), (DiploFoundation, 2014), at 179.

  19. 19.

    Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2012, notably Introduction and from p. 415 on.

  20. 20.

    Anupam Chander and Uyên P. Lê, “Data Nationalism”, Emory Law Journal, 2014, Issue 3, pp. 678–739, at 735.

  21. 21.

    Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, Hodder & Stoughton, 2014, at 3.

  22. 22.

    An overview can be found in: Jovan Kurbalija, Introduction to Internet Governance (6th Edition), (DiploFoundation, 2014).

  23. 23.

    According to its website, IANA is responsible for coordinating some of the key elements that keep the internet running smoothly, in particular domain names, number resources and protocol assignments.

  24. 24.

    Mission Statement W3C, available on: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.

  25. 25.

    “Internet Governance Forum: The Global Multistakeholder Forum for Dialogue on Internet Governance Issues”, available on: http://intgovforum.org/cms/2014/IGFBrochure.pdf.

  26. 26.

    Memorandum of Understanding Between the US Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (November 25, 1998), available on: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/1998/memorandum-understanding-between-us-department-commerce-and-internet-corporat.

  27. 27.

    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), De publieke kern van het internet, Naar een buitenlands internetbeleid, Amsterdam 2015, at 33.

  28. 28.

    Introduction to: Jovan Kurbalija, Internet Governance (6th Edition), DiploFoundation, 2014, at 9.

  29. 29.

    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), De publieke kern van het internet, Naar een buitenlands internetbeleid, Amsterdam 2015, at 33.

  30. 30.

    Introduction to Jovan Kurbalija, Internet Governance (6th Edition), DiploFoundation, 2014, at 9–10.

  31. 31.

    Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2012, at 417–418.

  32. 32.

    This is the essence of a report of the Scientific Council for Government Policy in the Netherlands; see in Dutch: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), De publieke kern van het internet, Naar een buitenlands internetbeleid, Amsterdam 2015.

  33. 33.

    Erika Szyszczak, in: Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner and Angela Ward (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, A Commentary, (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2014, at 36.26.

  34. 34.

    Erika Szyszczak, in: Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner and Angela Ward (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, A Commentary, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014, at 36.27.

  35. 35.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(2011) 900 final, at 2.5.

  36. 36.

    Jovan Kurbalija, Internet Governance (6th Edition), DiploFoundation, 2014, at 66–67.

  37. 37.

    Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, CETS 185, available through: http://www.coe.int/nl/web/conventions/.

  38. 38.

    As explained by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen in The New Digital Age (Hodder & Stoughton, 2014), at 103–120, using the term ‘code war’, instead of cold war.

  39. 39.

    Further read on internet governance: Jovan Kurbalija, Introduction to Internet Governance (6th Edition), (DiploFoundation, 2014); Michel J.G. van Eeten and Milton Mueller, “Where is the governance in Internet governance?”, New Media & Society, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 720–736, August 2013; Joel Reidenberg, “Governing Networks and Cyberspace Rule-Making”, 45 Emory Law Journal 911 (1996); Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), De publieke kern van het internet, Naar een buitenlands internetbeleid, Amsterdam 2015.

  40. 40.

    As mentioned above, referring to Eric Schmidt, Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, Hodder & Stoughton, 2014, at 3.

  41. 41.

    Anupam Chander and Uyên P. Lê, “Data Nationalism”, Emory Law Journal, 2014, Issue 3, pp. 678–739, at 678–682.

  42. 42.

    Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, as summarised in the conclusion. Castells defines a network as a set of interconnected nodes.

  43. 43.

    E.g., the internet boosted freedom of expression, as underlined in the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of 30 June 2014, The right to privacy in the digital age.

  44. 44.

    Yochai Benkler, “Networks of Power, Degrees of Freedom”, International Journal of Communication, 5, 2011, Harvard Law School, pp. 721–755, notably at 723.

  45. 45.

    E.g., Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), an intergovernmental coalition committed to advancing internet freedom – free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide, consisting of governments of more than 20 countries all over the world. This coalition produced the Founding Declaration “Freedom Online: Joint Action for Free Expression of the Internet” at its Annual Conference in The Hague in 2011, available on: https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1-The-Hague-FOC-Founding-Declaration-with-Signatories-as-of-2013.pdf.

  46. 46.

    Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, Preface, at III.

  47. 47.

    Castells uses the term ‘multimodal’, meaning that content as well as advanced social software are easily accessible and can easily be reformatted.

  48. 48.

    Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt (NY), 2014.

  49. 49.

    Yochai Benkler, “Networks of Power, Degrees of Freedom”, International Journal of Communication, 5, 2011, Harvard Law School, pp. 721–755, at 723.

  50. 50.

    The Arab spring, see on this in Dutch: Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken (AIV), Advies 92, Het Internet: een wereldwijde vrije ruimte met begrensde staatsmacht, November 2014, at 64.

  51. 51.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Internet of Things: an action plan for Europe, COM/2009/0278 final.

  52. 52.

    See examples by Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath, W.W. Norton & Company, 2015, at 15–17.

  53. 53.

    José van Dijck, “Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology”, Surveillance & Society, 12(2), pp. 197–208, 2014.

  54. 54.

    Economist, A special report on cyber security, Defending the digital frontier, 12 July 2014.

  55. 55.

    Economist, A special report on cyber security, Defending the digital frontier, 12 July 2014, at 4.

  56. 56.

    E.g., this dependency played a role in the decision of the CJEU leading to the invalidity of Directive 2006/24, Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), at 27.

  57. 57.

    See on this also Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2014 on the Recent Developments on the Internet of Things, WP223.

  58. 58.

    In particular: Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238, at 40. See also Chap. 5, Sect. 5.17 of this book.

  59. 59.

    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281/31.

  60. 60.

    E.g., Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46 reads: “Member States shall provide that the controller must implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure or access, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data over a network, and against all other unlawful forms of processing. Having regard to the state of the art and the cost of their implementation, such measures shall ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing and the nature of the data to be protected.”

  61. 61.

    Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201/37, as amended by Directive 2009/136, OJ L 337/11. See also Articles 33 and 34 GDPR, extending the personal scope of the breach notifications to all data controllers.

  62. 62.

    As announced in Chap. 1, the subject of this book is not internet security.

  63. 63.

    Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2012, at 364.

  64. 64.

    Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, Preface; Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea (Penguin Putnam Inc, 2012), e.g. at 363–366.

  65. 65.

    Darren Read, “Net neutrality and the EU electronic communications regulatory framework”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 20, No. 1, (Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  66. 66.

    This differentiation was an essential feature in Case C-131/12, Google Spain and Google Inc., EU:C:2014:317. See also The Advisory Council to Google on the Right to be Forgotten, Final Report, 6 February 2015.

  67. 67.

    E.g., Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Internet Policy and Governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance, COM/2014/072 final.

  68. 68.

    Chapter 2, Sect. 2.4 of this book.

  69. 69.

    Case C-131/12, Google Spain and Google Inc., EU:C:2014:317.

  70. 70.

    This book uses the term ‘fragmentation’ and its derivatives as alternatives for the term ‘balkanisation’: see Morgus and Maurer in their blogpost of 19 February 2014, available on: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/19/stop_calling_decentralization_of_the_internet_balkanization.html.

  71. 71.

    E.g., Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, Hodder & Stoughton, 2014, at 83–96; Anupam Chander and Uyên P. Lê, “Data Nationalism”, Emory Law Journal, 2014, Issue 3, pp. 678–739.

  72. 72.

    Anupam Chander and Uyên P. Lê, “Data Nationalism”, Emory Law Journal, 2014, Issue 3, pp. 678–739.

  73. 73.

    An example of the latter is North Korea: see: Darren Read, “Net neutrality and the EU electronic communications regulatory framework”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 20, No. 1. See also Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, Hodder & Stoughton, 2014, atvarious parts of this book explain the censorship by the Chinese government and its close connection to Huawei.

  74. 74.

    Janna Anderson and Lee Rainee, “Net Threats, Experts say liberty online is challenged by nation-state crackdowns, surveillance, and pressures of commercialization of the Internet”, Pew Research Center, available on: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/07/03/net-threats/.

  75. 75.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Internet Policy and Governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance, COM/2014/072 final, at 1.

  76. 76.

    Anupam Chander and Uyên P. Lê, “Data Nationalism”, Emory Law Journal, 2014, Issue 3, pp. 678–739, at 678–682.

  77. 77.

    Under Article 25 of Directive 95/46 transfer of personal data outside the EU requires an adequate level of protection in the country of destination. See Chap. 9 of this book.

  78. 78.

    E.g., Cloud for Europe, a project co-funded by the European Commission under the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP7), see: http://www.cloudforeurope.eu/. Chander and Lê mention that the idea of keeping data in Europe was proposed by the German Chancellor Merkel.

  79. 79.

    This book does not follow the order of the paper, but puts it in an order which is more logical in the book’s specific perspective.

  80. 80.

    Anupam Chander and Uyên P. Lê, “Data Nationalism”, Emory Law Journal, 2014, Issue 3, pp. 678–739, at 719.

  81. 81.

    Christopher Kuner, Fred H. Cate, Christopher Millard, Dan Jerker B. Svantesson and Orla Lynskey, “Internet Balkanization gathers pace: is privacy the real driver?”, International Data Privacy Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2015.

  82. 82.

    E.g., Cloud for Europe, see footnote 84.

  83. 83.

    See Chap. 2 of this book.

  84. 84.

    Case C-131/12, Google Spain and Google Inc., EU:C:2014:317.

  85. 85.

    Press release on the CNIL website of 12 June 2015, available on: http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/news/article/cnil-orders-google-to-apply-delisting-on-all-domain-names-of-the-search-engine/.

  86. 86.

    Blog by Peter Fleischer, Google Privacy Counsel, 30 July 2015, available on: http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.be/2015/07/implementing-european-not-global-right.html.

  87. 87.

    Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), Founding Declaration “Freedom Online: Joint Action for Free Expression of the Internet”, available on: https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1-The-Hague-FOC-Founding-Declaration-with-Signatories-as-of-2013.pdf.

  88. 88.

    The right to privacy in the digital age, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 June 2014, at I.1.

  89. 89.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Internet Policy and Governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance, COM/2014/072 final, at 5.

  90. 90.

    P. Bernal, Internet Privacy Rights, Rights to Protect Autonomy, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

  91. 91.

    The right to privacy in the digital age, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 June 2014.

  92. 92.

    Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), Founding Declaration “Freedom Online: Joint Action for Free Expression of the Internet”, at 3, available on: https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1-The-Hague-FOC-Founding-Declaration-with-Signatories-as-of-2013.pdf.

  93. 93.

    E.g., Darren Read, “Net neutrality and the EU electronic communications regulatory framework”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 20, No. 1, quoting Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. Berners-Lee also calls for an Internet Magna Carta or Bill of Rights; see: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/12/5499258/tim-berners-lee-asks-for-net-neutrality-on-internets-25th-birthday. See also: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A, Economic and Scientific Policy, Network Neutrality Revisited: Challenges and Responses in the EU and in the US, December 2014; Luca Belli and Primavera De Filippi (eds), The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow, Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, available on: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01026096.

  94. 94.

    Tim Wu, “Network neutrality, broadband discrimination”, Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, pp. 141–179, 2003, at 145.

  95. 95.

    This is obviously linked to a market with free competition. Also, this connotation is reflected in the idea of data portability, in Article 18 of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 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), COM (2012), 11 final.

  96. 96.

    Andrew McDiarmid and Matthew Shears, “The Importance of Internet Neutrality to Protecting Human Rights online”, in: Luca Belli and Primavera De Filippi (eds), The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow, Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, available on: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01026096, at 28–31.

  97. 97.

    Yochai Benkler, “Networks of Power, Degrees of Freedom”, International Journal of Communication, 5, pp. 721–755, 2011 Harvard Law School.

  98. 98.

    Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt (NY) 2014, at 6.

  99. 99.

    The case of censorship in China and Russia is elaborated in Dutch in: Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken (AIV), Advies 92, Het Internet: een wereldwijde vrije ruimte met begrensde staatsmacht, November 2014, at 62–63.

  100. 100.

    Janna Anderson and Lee Rainee, “Net Threats, Experts say liberty online is challenged by nation-state crackdowns, surveillance, and pressures of commercialization of the Internet”, Pew Research Center, available on: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/07/03/net-threats/.

  101. 101.

    Yochai Benkler, “Networks of Power, Degrees of Freedom”, International Journal of Communication, 5, pp. 721–755, 2011 Harvard Law School.

  102. 102.

    Manuel Castells, “A Network Theory of Power”, International Journal of Communication, 5, pp. 773–787, 2011 1932–8036/20110773. This paper is worth reading, because it identifies different forms of power and counter power.

  103. 103.

    Manuel Castells, “A Network Theory of Power”, International Journal of Communication, 5, pp. 773–787, 2011 1932–8036/20110773, at 775.

  104. 104.

    Manuel Castells, “A Network Theory of Power”, International Journal of Communication 5, pp. 773–787, 2011 1932–8036/20110773, at 773.

  105. 105.

    Manuel Castells, “A Network Theory of Power”, International Journal of Communication, 5, pp. 773-787, 2011 1932–8036/20110773, at 773.

  106. 106.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World, A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century, COM (2012), 9 final, at 6.

  107. 107.

    A similar, but not equal list is found in: Lee A. Bygrave, Data Privacy Law, An International Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, at 9.

  108. 108.

    Technological turbulence is a term widely used. See, e.g., Jeremy Hall and Philip Rosson, “The Impact of Technological Turbulence on Entrepreneurial Behavior, Social Norms and Ethics: Three Internet-based Cases”, Journal of Business Ethics, 64, pp. 231–248, 2006.

  109. 109.

    Prins, in: Hijmans and Kranenborg (eds), Data Protection Anno 2014: How to Restore Trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia, 2014, at 27.

  110. 110.

    Economist, A special report on cyber-security, Defending the digital frontier, 12 July 2014. See Sect. 3.4 of this chapter.

  111. 111.

    Joel Reidenberg, “The Data Surveillance State in the United States and Europe”, Princeton University – Center for Information Technology Policy; Fordham University School of Law, November 2, 2013, Wake Forest Law Review, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2349269, at 3.

  112. 112.

    As explained by Lee A. Bygrave in Data Privacy Law, An International Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014.

  113. 113.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.

  114. 114.

    José van Dijck, “Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology”, Surveillance & Society, 12(2), pp. 197–208, 2014, at 205.

  115. 115.

    It is recognised as a major risk for the internet that commercial pressures affecting everything from internet architecture to the flow of information will endanger the open structure of online life; see: Janna Anderson and Lee Rainee, “Net Threats, Experts say liberty online is challenged by nation-state crackdowns, surveillance, and pressures of commercialization of the Internet”, Pew Research Center, available on: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/07/03/net-threats/.

  116. 116.

    European Data Protection Supervisor, Preliminary Opinion of 26 March 2014 on “Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy”, notably at 10–13.

  117. 117.

    Because of requirements on Quality of Service, see European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A, Economic and Scientific Policy, Network Neutrality Revisited: Challenges and Responses in the EU and in the US, December 2014, at 24 and 101–102.

  118. 118.

    The three V’s; see: “Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values”, Executive Office of the President (Podesta Report), at 4.

  119. 119.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.

  120. 120.

    Although data subjects have the right of rectification of non-accurate personal data, under Article 8(2) Charter.

  121. 121.

    José Van Dijck, Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208, 2014, at 199.

  122. 122.

    Three characteristics mentioned in: Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Extraterritoriality in Data Privacy Law, Ex Tuto Publishing, 2013, at 46.

  123. 123.

    Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective. Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, (PCAST Report) May 2014, Section 2.

  124. 124.

    Quote taken from Annika Sponselee, “Privacy with a View – Part II”, Privacy & Practice 01-02/2015, at 71–78.

  125. 125.

    Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, Executive Office of the President (Podesta Report), May 2014. See pp. 2–3.

  126. 126.

    Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective. Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, (PCAST Report) May 2014.

  127. 127.

    Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, Executive Office of the President (Podesta Report), with reference to: Liran Einav and Jonathan D. Levin, “The Data Revolution and Economic Analysis”, NBER Working Paper No. 19035, May 2013.

  128. 128.

    Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, Executive Office of the President, Podesta Report, at 4–5.

  129. 129.

    Section 215 of the US Patriot Act 2001 only relates to metadata. The US government emphasised that the NSA only collected metadata; see: Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath, W.W. Norton & Company, 2015, at 20.

  130. 130.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238.

  131. 131.

    Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ L 105/54.

  132. 132.

    Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, Executive Office of the President, Podesta Report, at 34.

  133. 133.

    See also Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath, W.W. Norton & Company, 2015, at 17–21.

  134. 134.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.

  135. 135.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013, at 158. Instead, they propose a strategy based on the accountability of organisations (at 173).

  136. 136.

    Christopher Kuner, European Data Protection Law, Corporate Compliance and Regulation (Second Edition), Oxford University Press, 2007, at 2.30.

  137. 137.

    Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in context, Stanford University Press, 2010. Challenging her proposals falls outside the scope of this book.

  138. 138.

    James Rule, Douglas McAdam, Linda Stearns and David Uglow, The Politics of Privacy, Planning for Personal Data Systems as Powerful Technologies, Elsevier, 1980, at 133.

  139. 139.

    Other interesting examples can be found in: Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective. Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, (PCAST Report), Chapter 2.

  140. 140.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier,Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013, at 40.

  141. 141.

    “Digital Agenda: Commission consults on rules for wirelessly connected devices – the ‘Internet of Things’”, press release European Commission, 12 April 2012, available on: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-360_en.htm. See also: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Internet of Things : an action plan for Europe, COM/2009/0278 final.

  142. 142.

    Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, Executive Office of the President (Podesta Report), at 53.

  143. 143.

    See, in particular, pp. 5–9 of the report. The report also mentions the persistance of data, a subject that is also relevant in relation to the right to be forgotten, and the ruling in Case C-131/12, Google Spain and Google Inc., EU:C:2014:317.

  144. 144.

    European Council, The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ 2010, C 115, at 4.2.2.

  145. 145.

    This is also what former NSA Director Alexander said; see: Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath, W.W. Norton & Company, 2015, at 138.

  146. 146.

    This is closely related to targeted and behavioural advertising, which is not always perceived as positive from the perspective of privacy and data protection.

  147. 147.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data, adopted on 20 June 2007, WP 136.

  148. 148.

    The subject of: European Data Protection Supervisor, Preliminary Opinion of 26 March 2014 on “Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy”.

  149. 149.

    Damien Geradin and Monika Kuschewsky, “Competition Law and Personal Data: Preliminary Thoughts on a Complex Issue”, Discussion Papers Tilburg Law and Economics Center, DP 2013-010, at 2.

  150. 150.

    Jones Harbour in: Hielke Hijmans and Herke Kranenborg (eds), Data protection anno 2014: how to restore trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia, 2014, at 225–234.

  151. 151.

    These topics play a role in various other chapters of this book.

  152. 152.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238.

  153. 153.

    Council Decision of 13 July 2010 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, OJ L 195/3.

  154. 154.

    E.g., Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security, OJ (2012) L 215/5; Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, OJ L 119/132.

  155. 155.

    Case Los Angeles v Patel et al. No. 13–1175, 22 June 2015.

  156. 156.

    Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom, Atheneum, 1967.

  157. 157.

    Surveillance Studies Network, A Report on the Surveillance Society, report for the Information Commissioner, September 2006, available on: https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/1042390/surveillance-society-full-report-2006.pdf.

  158. 158.

    See also Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath, W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.

  159. 159.

    Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State, in particular at 5–6, 46, and 174–180, also referring to research relating to Watergate.

  160. 160.

    Although the massive scale is important. Greenwald refers to the ‘collect it all’ philosophy of the NSA, at 95, 169 of his book.

  161. 161.

    This is a statement of Greenwald, but a nuance will be given below.

  162. 162.

    See also Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath, W.W. Norton & Company, 2015, at 95–98.

  163. 163.

    A Report on the Surveillance Society, at 2.1.

  164. 164.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013, e.g. the example in 3.2 thereof on the prediction of the spread of flu.

  165. 165.

    Chapter 5 will further explore the legal aspects of this balancing.

  166. 166.

    Dave Eggers, The Circle, McSweeney’s, 2013.

  167. 167.

    See in this context also the statement of Zuckerberg that privacy is no longer the norm, mentioned in Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3 of this book.

  168. 168.

    Eric Schmidt, Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, Hodder & Stoughton 2014, at 173.

  169. 169.

    Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronisation and Management (PRISM) of the NSA.

  170. 170.

    European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, National programmes for mass surveillance of personal data in EU Member States and their compatibility with EU law, October 2013, at 69. This report mentions search history, content of emails, file transfers and live chats.

  171. 171.

    See on the US legal framework, Report on the Findings by the EU Co-chairs of the ad hoc EU-US Working Group on Data Protection, 27 November 2013.

  172. 172.

    As amended by the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1881a.

  173. 173.

    This act also amended FISA, 50 U.S.C. 1861.

  174. 174.

    Further read: Milanovic, Marko, 2015, “Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age”, Harvard International Law Journal, 56, 81–146, 2015.

  175. 175.

    E.g., interception on internet cables. Report on the Findings by the EU Co-chairs of the ad hoc EU-US Working Group on Data Protection, 27 November 2013. Please note that this interception falls outside PRISM.

  176. 176.

    Similar to traffic data under Directive 2002/58 and Directive 2006/24.

  177. 177.

    Government Communications Headquarters, operating a programme codenamed TEMPORA. See: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, National programmes for mass surveillance of personal data in EU Member States and their compatibility with EU law, at 7.

  178. 178.

    European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, National programmes for mass surveillance of personal data in EU Member States and their compatibility with EU law. This report mentions Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands as countries engaged in large-scale interception and processing of communications data.

  179. 179.

    For instance, used for average speed cameras (trajectcontrole) which are in place in the Netherlands and some other European countries. Source Wikipedia, Dutch page on trajectcontrole.

  180. 180.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238.

  181. 181.

    European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, National programmes for mass surveillance of personal data in EU Member States and their compatibility with EU law, 2013, at 39.

  182. 182.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238, at 37.

  183. 183.

    European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, National programmes for mass surveillance of personal data in EU Member States and their compatibility with EU law, at 12.

  184. 184.

    Just as an illustration, the numerous references in European Parliament, Libe Committee, Inquiry on electronic mass surveillance of EU Citizens, Protecting fundamental rights in a digital age, Proceedings, Outcome and Background Documents, 2013–2014.

  185. 185.

    European Data Protection Supervisor, Preliminary Opinion of 26 March 2014 on “Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy”, Section 2.

  186. 186.

    Further read: Federal Trade Commission, “Data Brokers, A Call for Transparency and Accountability”, May 2014, published on www.ftc.gov.

  187. 187.

    Distinction made by Ira Rubinstein and Joris Van Hoboken in “Privacy and Security in the Cloud: Some Realism About Technical Solutions to Transnational Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era”, 66 Maine Law Review, 488, (2014), at 491. They distinguish between requests to hand over data and interception of not-encrypted data.

  188. 188.

    Further read: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, National programmes for mass surveillance of personal data in EU Member States and their compatibility with EU law.

  189. 189.

    Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, OJ L 119/132.

  190. 190.

    Article 1 of the proposal. The negotiations within the European Parliament took very long, precisely because of the privacy intrusiveness.

  191. 191.

    This advance notice will not always be given. Further read: Erin Murphy, “The Politics of Privacy in the Criminal Justice System: Information Disclosure, The Fourth Amendment, and Statutory Law Enforcement Exemptions”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 111, No. 4, 2013, at 515.

  192. 192.

    18 U.S.C. § 2510.

  193. 193.

    18 U.S.C. § 2703.

  194. 194.

    As will be explained in Chap. 6, Sect. 6.12 of this book.

  195. 195.

    See Sect. 3.4.

  196. 196.

    Further read: Ira Rubinstein and Joris Van Hoboken, “Privacy and Security in the Cloud: Some Realism About Technical Solutions to Transnational Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era”, 66 Maine Law Review, 488, 2014.

  197. 197.

    European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, National programmes for mass surveillance of personal data in EU Member States and their compatibility with EU law, 2013, at 8. The paper does not provide evidence.

  198. 198.

    See: Report Research Division ECHR, Internet: case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, available on: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_internet_ENG.pdf, at 8; Antonella Galetta and Paul De Hert, “Complementing the Surveillance Law Principles of the ECtHR with its Environmental Law Principles: An Integrated Technology Approach to a Human Rights Framework for Surveillance”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 10, Issue 1, January 2014, at footnote 30 of Chap. 2.

  199. 199.

    See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3 of this book.

  200. 200.

    A parallel could be drawn with S. and Marper v UK, Applications Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 December 2008. In that case before the ECtHR the element of stigmatisation played a role, where the applicants in the case where included in a targeted (albeit huge, but that is not relevant here) DNA database.

  201. 201.

    See: Foreign Fighters under International Law, Academia Briefing No 7, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, October 2014.

  202. 202.

    Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ L 105/54.

  203. 203.

    Bundesverfassungsgericht Germany, ruling of 2 March 2010 in joined cases 1 BvR 256/08, 1 BvR 263/08, 1 BvR 586/08 on data retention, press release No. 11/2010 of 2 March 2010, at 3.

  204. 204.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238, at 67 and 68. Paragraph 68 will be discussed further in Chap. 7.

  205. 205.

    This is the topic of output legitimacy, that plays a role in various parts of this book.

  206. 206.

    As will be explained in Chap. 5 of this book.

  207. 207.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) and Seitlinger (C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238, at 67.

  208. 208.

    Commission Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation, COM (2012), 11 final; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data, COM (2012), 10 final.

  209. 209.

    See, e.g., the explanatory memorandum of the proposed regulation.

  210. 210.

    The GDPR, as well as Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119/89.

  211. 211.

    Triggering this book, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.1.

  212. 212.

    R. Daniel Kelemen, “Suing for Europe, Adversarial Legalism and European Governance”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 101–127, February 2006, at 105.

  213. 213.

    Moving away decision making from central states; see: Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, May 2003, at 233.

  214. 214.

    Multi-level governance is attaining wider acceptance, as is illustrated by, e.g., the Special Issue on the Constitutional Adulthood of Multi-Level Governance of the Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 21/2, 2014.

  215. 215.

    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), De publieke kern van het internet, Naar een buitenlands internetbeleid, Amsterdam 2015.

  216. 216.

    Eric Schmidt, Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, Hodder & Stoughton, 2014, at 55.

  217. 217.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013, at 153.

  218. 218.

    Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, Executive Office of the President (Podesta Report), May 2014; Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective. Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, (PCAST Report) May 2014; Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013. See Sect. 3.6 above.

  219. 219.

    See Sect. 3.6 above.

  220. 220.

    Joint statement issued following a meeting of the Ministers of the Interior in Paris, 11 January 2015.

  221. 221.

    Joint statement issued following a meeting of the Ministers of the Interior in Paris, 11 January 2015. The legislative process of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, COM (2011) 32 final, was blocked in the European Parliament because of privacy concerns. Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, OJ L 119/132, was finally adopted in April 2016.

  222. 222.

    Case C-131/12, Google Spain and Google Inc., EU:C:2014:317, in particular at 58 and 80. See Hielke Hijmans, “Right to have links removed: Evidence of effective data protection”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2014(3).

  223. 223.

    This is, for instance, the raison d’être of the measures on PNR or on data retention.

  224. 224.

    José Van Dijck, Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology, Surveillance & Society 12(2), 197–208, 2014, at 203. She mentions alleged connections between Silicon Valley and the NSA.

  225. 225.

    Title of a column by Timothy Garton-Ash in The Guardian of 27 July 2014: “If Big Brother came back, he’d be a public-private partnership.”

  226. 226.

    See Sect. 3.5 above.

  227. 227.

    This statement reflects potential powers, but is not meant as an accusation of actual bad behaviour of big internet companies.

  228. 228.

    See, e.g., letter of Article 29 Working Party to Google of 23 September 2014, available on: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/other-document/files/2014/20140923_letter_on_google_privacy_policy.pdf.

  229. 229.

    See Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 26 November 2012 on the Commission’s Communication on “Unleashing the potential of Cloud Computing in Europe”, at II.4.

  230. 230.

    Cedric Ryngaert, Jurisdiction in International Law, United States and European Perspectives, KU Leuven, Doctorate Thesis, 2007, at 46.

  231. 231.

    Joel R. Reidenberg a.o., Internet Jurisdiction, Survey of Legal Scholarship Published in English and United States Case Law, 30 June 2013, Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy, at 1.

  232. 232.

    Data protection – or data privacy, as it called in the US – is much wider than privacy protected under the US constitution, in particular in the private sector where data protection is part of consumer protection, see Chap. 6, Sect. 6.12 of this book.

  233. 233.

    See Chap. 2 of this book.

  234. 234.

    See, on this, Julie Brill, “Bridging the divide”, in: Hijmans and Kranenborg (eds), Data Protection Anno 2014: How to Restore Trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia, 2014, as well as Chap. 7, Sect. 5 of this book.

  235. 235.

    See also UN Resolution affirming that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online: UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, “The promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet”, Doc. No. A/HRC/20/L.13, 29 June 2012, available through: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session20/Pages/ResDecStat.aspx. See also: UN General Assembly plenary on 18 December, 2014, Resolution “Right to Privacy in the Digital Age” (A/RES/69/166), affirming “that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy”.

  236. 236.

    This positive obligation to protect was discussed in Chap. 2, Sect. 2.7 of this book, in relation to the paradigm of horizontal effect of fundamental rights.

  237. 237.

    See Sect. 3.2 above.

  238. 238.

    Case C-131/12, Google Spain and Google Inc., EU:C:2014:317, in particular at 53.

  239. 239.

    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281/31.

  240. 240.

    Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC.

  241. 241.

    See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World, A European Data Protection Framework for the twenty-first Century, COM (2012) 9 final.

  242. 242.

    See mainly Chapter VII of the GDPR.

  243. 243.

    Further read: Special issue on the Constitutional Adulthood of Multi-Level Governance, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2014.

  244. 244.

    Eric Schmidt, Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, Hodder & Stoughton, 2014, at 3.

References

  • Anderson, Janna, and Lee Rainee. 2014. Net threats, experts say liberty online is challenged by nation-state crackdowns, surveillance, and pressures of commercialization of the Internet, Pew Research Center. Available on: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/07/03/net-threats/.

  • Belli, Luca, and Primavera De Filippi (eds). 2013. The value of network neutrality for the internet of tomorrow. Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. Available on: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01026096

  • Benkler, Yochai. 2011. Networks of power, degrees of freedom. International Journal of Communication 5: 721–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernal, P. 2014. Internet privacy rights, rights to protect autonomy. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave, Lee A. 2014. Data privacy law, an international perspective. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, Manuel. 2009. The rise of the network society, volume I: The information age: Economy, society and culture. 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, Manuel. 2011. A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication 5: 773–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Democracy and Technology. 2011. Regardless of frontiers: The international right to freedom of expression in the digital age. Discussion Draft Version 0.5, April 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chander, Anupam, and Uyên P. Lê. 2014. Data nationalism. Emory Law Journal 2014(3): 678–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijck, José van. 2014. Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society 12(2): 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist. A special report on cyber security, defending the digital frontier. Issue 12 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeten, Michel J.G., and Milton Mueller. 2013. Where is the governance in internet governance? New Media & Society 15(5): 720–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, Dave. 2013. The Circle. Random House LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einav, Liran, and Jonathan D. Levin. 2013. The data revolution and economic analysis. NBER working paper, No. 19035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foreign Fighters under International Law. 2014. Academia briefing no 7, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, October 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, Antonella, and Paul De Hert. 2014. Complementing the surveillance law principles of the ECtHR with its environmental law principles: An integrated technology approach to a human rights framework for surveillance. Utrecht Law Review 10(Issue 1): 55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geradin, Damien, and Monika Kuschewsky. 2013. Competition law and personal data: Preliminary thoughts on a complex issue. Discussion Papers Tilburg Law and Economics Center, DP 2013-010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, Glenn. 2014. No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the surveillance state. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Jeremy, and Philip Rosson. 2006. The impact of technological turbulence on entrepreneurial behavior, social norms and ethics: Three internet-based cases. Journal of Business Ethics 64: 231–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans, Hielke. 2014. Right to have links removed: Evidence of effective data protection. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2014(3), 555–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans, Hielke, and Herke Kranenborg (eds). 2014. Data protection Anno 2014: How to restore trust? Contributions in honour of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (2004–2014), Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2003. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review 97(2): 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Internet Governance Forum. 2014. The global multistakeholder forum for dialogue on internet governance issues. Available on: http://intgovforum.org/cms/2014/IGFBrochure.pdf.

  • Irion, K., and P. Valcke. 2014. Cultural diversity in the digital age: EU competences, policies and regulations for diverse audiovisual and online content. In Cultural governance and the European Union, ed. E. Psychogiopoulou. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, R. Daniel. 2006. Suing for Europe, adversarial legalism and european governance. Comparative Political Studies 39(1): 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuner, Christopher. 2007. European data protection law, corporate compliance and regulation, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuner, Christopher, Fred H. Cate, Christopher Millard, Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, and Orla Lynskey. 2015. Internet Balkanization gathers pace: is privacy the real driver?, International Data Privacy Law 5(1): 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurbalija, Jovan. 2014. Introduction to internet governance, 6th ed. DiploFoundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, Koen, Ignace Maselis, and Kathleen Gutman. 2014. EU procedural law. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Special issue: “The Constitutional Adulthood of Multi-Level Governance”, 2014, Vol. 21, No. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor, and Kenneth Cukier. 2013. Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazower, Mark. 2012. Governing the world: The history of an idea. Penguin Putnam Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic, Marko. 2015. Human rights treaties and foreign surveillance: Privacy in the digital age. Harvard International Law Journal 56: 81–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Erin. 2013. The politics of privacy in the criminal justice system: Information disclosure, the fourth amendment, and statutory law enforcement exemptions. Michigan Law Review 111(4): 485–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, Helen. 2010. Privacy in context. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, Steve, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward (eds). 2014. The EU charter of fundamental rights, a commentary. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, Darren. 2012. Net neutrality and the EU electronic communications regulatory framework. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 20(1): 48–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenberg, Joel. 1996. Governing networks and cyberspace rule-making. Emory Law Journal 45: 911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenberg, Joel. 2013. The data surveillance state in the United States and Europe. Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2349269. Princeton University – Center for Information Technology Policy/Fordham University School of Law, Wake Forest Law Review, November 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenberg, Joel R. a.o. 2013. Internet jurisdiction, survey of legal scholarship. Published in English and United States Case Law, Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, Ira, and Joris Van Hoboken. 2014. Privacy and security in the cloud: Some realism about technical solutions to transnational surveillance in the post-Snowden Era. Maine Law Review 66: 488–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rule, James, Douglas McAdam, Linda Stearns, and David Uglow. 1980. The politics of privacy, planning for personal data systems as powerful technologies. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert, Cedric. 2007. Jurisdiction in international law, United States and European perspectives. Dissertation KU Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Eric, and Jared Cohen. 2015. The new digital age. Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneier, Bruce. 2015. Data and Goliath. W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sponselee, Annika. 2015. Privacy with a view – part II. Privacy & Practice 01-02/2015, 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surveillance Studies Network. 2006. A report on the surveillance society. Report for the Information Commissioner. Available on:https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/1042390/surveillance-society-full-report-2006.pdf.

  • Svantesson, Dan Jerker B. 2013. Extraterritoriality in data privacy law. Ex Tuto Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westin, Alan F. 1967. Privacy and freedom. Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Tim. 2003. Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 2: 141–179.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brussels, Belgium

    Hielke Hijmans

Authors
  1. Hielke Hijmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hijmans, H. (2016). Internet and Loss of Control in an Era of Big Data and Mass Surveillance. In: The European Union as Guardian of Internet Privacy. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34090-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34090-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-34089-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-34090-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation