Data Plan Sours, Too Grand For Some

Michael Hedges December 9, 2013 - Follow on Twitter

Data protection and privacy are certainly hot button issues. Revelations of big data scoop-ups by various governmental agencies abetted by big data scoopers have sent a wide variety of interested parties into a spin, all crying “there must be a law.” But, as legal things go, it’s difficult to find common ground.

Invited to Brussels for a big decision last week were 28 national justice ministers, chief legal officers, for the final debate on revision of the Data Protection Directive, so old it barely considers a data-rich internet. Nearly two years ago the European Commission (EC) proposed a regulation on data protection replacing the directive, significant in itself as a regulation under EU law needs only approval of justice ministers of the Member States while a directive requires ratification by each national legislature.

But the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council put any final vote on the regulation on hold, perhaps permanently. “The ministers did not want to make hasty decisions,” said Lithuania’s Justice Minister Juozas Beratonis, who chaired the meeting with Lithuania’s Home Affairs Minister Dailis Alfonsas Barakauskas. Some – including the Germans, Swedes and Belgians – wanted a stronger message, largely, to American tech giants Microsoft, Google and Facebook, strongly criticized for handing customer data to government spy agencies. Others, like the UK, hate the idea of ceding national authority to the EU, particularly with elections looming with nationalist and eurosceptic voices gaining traction.  

The crux of the General Data Protection Regulation is, in theory, streamlining a process complicated by 28 national laws. Imbedded in the hearts of EU Commissioners are single market virtues and with it the notion of grand unifying legislation. Since the Great Recession national politicians have found it a hard idea to sell back home. “Today, we have moved backwards,” said EC Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding. The proposed regulation will likely be downgraded to a directive, forcing a long process of national debates, and not seeing next light until after European Parliament elections.

European publisher groups must be relieved. The European Publishers Council (EPC), European Newspaper Publishers Association (ENPA), European Magazine Media Association (EMMA) and the European Journalists Federation (EFJ) mounted a campaign asking the justice ministers to “re-think” the proposed data protection regulation. As always, press freedom was the main argument. (See joint statement here) The publishers were looking for a journalistic exception.

“Data protection reform should not place any restrictions on the right of the independent press to carry out investigative reporting in Europe,” said ENPA president Ivar Rusdal in the statement. At the ENPA’s congress in Athens a month ago, Mr. Rusdal was a bit more clear. Publishers, it seems, object to language in the draft proposal that would require all organizations with customer databases over five thousand to employ a full-time data protection person.

“The ability to reach new readers is also crucial for the future sustainability of the press,” said Mr. Rusdal in Athens. “We therefore call on legislators to ensure that the final Data Protection Regulation will not destroy communication channels that have been used for decades to develop press circulation.” Publishers and Facebook have, it seems, much in common.

See also in ftm Knowledge

Media Laws – New and Revised

Policy makers and politicians are writing and rewiting media laws and rules at a breakneck pace. As broadcasters and publishers grapple with changes brought about by digital development, new business models and financial distress, the new media is feeling rules tightening around it. From licensing and public broadcasting to privacy, piracy and copyright this ftm Knowledge file Media Laws – New and Revised summarizes new laws and revised laws from a media perspective. 135 pages PDF (December 2010)

Order here