Artic­le 29 Working Par­ty on the ePri­va­cy Regu­la­ti­on (Working Paper 247, 4.4.2017): Fears of under­mi­ning the stan­dard of the GDPR

The Artic­le 29 Working Group held a mee­ting on April 4, 2017 Opi­ni­on on the plan­ned ePri­va­cy Regu­la­ti­on published. The ePri­va­cy Regu­la­ti­on (“Regu­la­ti­on on Pri­va­cy and Elec­tro­nic Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons”) has been available sin­ce the begin­ning of 2017 in the Draft befo­re (here available). It is inten­ded to imple­ment the “Coo­kie Direc­ti­ve” (RL 2009/136/EC) replace. It is fur­ther­mo­re com­pa­ti­ble with the GDPR coor­di­na­ted (to a cer­tain ext­ent), is also to enter into force on May 25, 2018 and dis­places In its scope of appli­ca­ti­on (the pro­ce­s­sing of elec­tro­nic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons data in the pro­vi­si­on and use of elec­tro­nic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices) diver­gent pro­vi­si­ons of the GDPR.

The working group wel­co­mes the legal form of the plan­ned regu­la­ti­on (direct­ly appli­ca­ble regu­la­ti­on) and its prin­ci­ple-based approach. It also wel­co­mes the appli­ca­ti­on to so-cal­led over-the-top (OTT) ser­vices, i.e., the elec­tro­nic trans­mis­si­on of third-par­ty con­tent such as movies via the Inter­net wit­hout a net­work ope­ra­tor being direct­ly invol­ved in the con­trol or dis­tri­bu­ti­on of the con­tent (accor­ding to the Weko in the inve­sti­ga­ti­on regar­ding sports in pay TV against Swis­s­com, among others, RPW 2016/4). Examp­les are Sky­pe or Facebook.

The Working Par­ty, on the other hand, fears a decrea­se in the level of pro­tec­tion pro­vi­ded by the GDPR for the fol­lo­wing four are­as or pro­ce­s­sing operations:

  1. WiFi and Blue­tooth track­ing: Here, Art. 8(2)(b) of the ePri­va­cy Regu­la­ti­on only requi­res a clear indi­ca­ti­on, whe­re­as the GDPR usual­ly requi­res con­sent and an appro­pria­te limi­ta­ti­on of track­ing is missing;
  2. Ana­ly­sis of com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on data eva­lua­ti­on: Artic­le 6 of the ePri­va­cy Regu­la­ti­on wron­gly dif­fe­ren­tia­tes bet­ween the pro­ce­s­sing of con­tent data and that of mar­gi­nal data; both are equal­ly sen­si­ti­ve. In both cases, pro­ce­s­sing should in prin­ci­ple only be per­mis­si­ble with the con­sent of all par­ties invol­ved (sen­der and reci­pi­ent), inso­far as the pro­ce­s­sing is not neces­sa­ry for the main pur­po­se of the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, i.e., in par­ti­cu­lar for hand­ling the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, ensu­ring data secu­ri­ty and main­tai­ning the requi­red ser­vice qua­li­ty. Only some spe­ci­fic ser­vices are to be per­mit­ted with the con­sent of the ser­vice user only (i.e., wit­hout the con­sent of other par­ties involved).
  3. Soft­ware pro­vi­derThe fol­lo­wing stan­dards must be met in order to ensu­re com­pli­ance with the pri­va­cy by default (cf. Art. 25 (2) GDPR). Art. 10 of the ePri­va­cy Direc­ti­ve only requi­res that users can make pri­va­cy-fri­end­ly set­tings, but not that the­se set­tings must be pro­vi­ded by default.
  4. Cou­pling track­ing and ser­vice accessA “take it or lea­ve it” offer of web­sites or ser­vices is to be pro­hi­bi­ted, i.e. an offer who­se access is only pos­si­ble with con­sent to tracking.

The opi­ni­on of the Artic­le 29 Working Par­ty con­ta­ins fur­ther points whe­re impro­ve­ments should also be made in order to impro­ve the pro­tec­tion of the per­sons concerned.

In con­trast, the draft of the ePri­va­cy Regu­la­ti­on has been met with a posi­ti­ve respon­se from the busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty. harsh cri­ti­cism encoun­te­red. Bit­kom, an important indu­stry asso­cia­ti­on, has in a State­ment from Febru­ary 6, 2017 cri­ti­ci­zed the fol­lo­wing points in particular:

  • Par­al­lel regu­la­ti­ons to the GDPR are to be rejec­ted in prin­ci­ple, such as own requi­re­ments for con­sent or the use of loca­ti­on data;
  • the appli­ca­ti­on of the ePri­va­cy Regu­la­ti­on also to elec­tro­nic Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on bet­ween legal enti­ties and bet­ween machi­nes (M2M) is not neces­sa­ry and threa­tens new busi­ness models;
  • in gene­ral, the Spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons too strict;
  • the intro­duc­tion of the regu­la­ti­on on the May 25, 2018 does not allow com­pa­nies suf­fi­ci­ent time to prepare;
  • Self-regu­la­to­ry mea­su­res should be given grea­ter support.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be