Upload
nanji
View
14
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Professor Joel R. Reidenberg Stanley D. and Nikki Waxberg Chair Academic Director, Center on Law & Information Policy Fordham University School of Law New York, NY. Overview. Basic rules for data retention and access in the US and Europe Intractable Conflicts - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Professor Joel R. ReidenbergStanley D. and Nikki Waxberg Chair
Academic Director, Center on Law & Information PolicyFordham University School of Law
New York, NY
2
Overview
• Basic rules for data retention and access in the US and Europe
• Intractable Conflicts
• The Privacy Turning Point
3
Basic Rules: U.S. Data Retention
47 C.F.R. 42.6
Corporate practice
4
Basic Rules: EU Data Retention
• Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection)• Directive 2002/58/EC
(E-Privacy)• Directive 2006/24/EC
(Data Retention)
5
Basic Rules: U.S. Data Access
Constitutional limits 4th Amendment3rd Party Doctrine Contents/Traffic
ECPA (1986)Warrant, SubpoenaAdmin Subpoena
6
Basic Rules: EU Data Access
Directive 95/46/EC : General limit
Directive 2002/58/EC Law = necessary + proportionate
Directive 2006/24/EC Law + procedures =
necessity + proportionality in EU law,international law, & ECHR
7
Intractable Conflicts
Context
Source: Google Transparency Report
(as of 12/31/2012)
8
Intractable Conflicts
• Elusive Linkage between
Retention and AccessUS: Emphasis on regulation of access
Statutory weakness
EU: Emphasis on regulation of retention
Blurry access controls
‘Constitutional’ limits (e.g. Germany)
9
Intractable Conflicts
• Enforcement BurdenContradictions
Sheriff Role of Private Sector
Directive 1995/46/EC vs.
data retention
Proportionality Problem
Function creep (e.g. French LCEN)
10
The Privacy Turning Point: An impossible dilemma
Transparent citizensReversal of presumption of innocence
Reduction of zone of individual freedom
Diffusion of state police powerExpansion to private matters (e.g. IP)
11
Conclusion
Couple1) Collection/storage limits
2) Strict, specific access limits