Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Personal Data Protection in Policy and Practice

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 29))

Abstract

Increasing numbers of people are concerned about their privacy. This is a worldwide trend, which may be due to increased numbers of people who are active on social media and technological developments that enable or even force people to perform more and more actions and transactions online. People indicate that they have limited knowledge about who is processing their personal data and for which purposes. Also, people experience limited control over their personal data.

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

Access this chapter

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 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Only two out of 10 EU citizens indicate that they are informed on which personal data is collected about them and what happens with these data. Eurobarometer 431 2015, p. 81.

  2. 2.

    Only 15% of EU citizens indicate that they have full control over the personal data they put online. At the same time, 31% indicate that they have no control whatsoever. Some control is experienced by 50%. Two out of three EU citizens indicate that they are concerned about this lack of control over their personal data. Eurobarometer 431 2015, pp. 9, 12.

  3. 3.

    REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 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 and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).

  4. 4.

    DIRECTIVE (EU) 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.

  5. 5.

    General Data Protection Regulation, Article 83(4) and (5).

  6. 6.

    Custers and Bachlechner 2018.

  7. 7.

    Lessig 2006.

  8. 8.

    Malgieri and Custers 2017. See also Prins 2004; Purtova 2015.

  9. 9.

    Earlier work includes: Flaherty 1989; Bennett 1992.

  10. 10.

    See also Mulligan and Bamberger 2015.

  11. 11.

    Mulligan and Bamberger 2015. See also Cannataci 2016; Vedder and Custers 2009.

  12. 12.

    Clifford and Ausloos 2017.

  13. 13.

    See https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/49710223.pdf.

  14. 14.

    Norberg et al. 2007.

  15. 15.

    Vedder and Custers 2009.

  16. 16.

    For an overview, see Ursic and Custers 2016.

  17. 17.

    Helberger et al. 2017.

  18. 18.

    Custers et al. 2013.

  19. 19.

    Stucke and Ezrachi 2015.

  20. 20.

    In other words, the focus is on informational privacy, rather than on spatial, relational, or physical privacy.

  21. 21.

    Roosendaal et al. 2015.

  22. 22.

    Custers et al. 2017.

  23. 23.

    Custers et al. 2018.

  24. 24.

    For the full report, see Custers et al. 2017.

  25. 25.

    Roosendaal et al. 2015.

  26. 26.

    Note that the GPDR revokes the DPD, but not the national legislation that implements the DPD. It is for each member state to decide whether such national legislation will be revoked or amended. In case the national legislation is not revoked or amended, it may serve as an addition to the GDPR provisions. In case of conflicting provisions, the GDPR obviously prevails over national legislation.

  27. 27.

    This is referring to “law in practice” or “law in action” as opposed to “law in the books”. Or, in the words of Mulligan and Bamberger 2015: “privacy on the ground”.

  28. 28.

    Custers et al. 2014.

  29. 29.

    Roosendaal et al. 2015.

  30. 30.

    Roosendaal et al. 2015.

  31. 31.

    CONSENT 2012.

  32. 32.

    Brockdorff 2012.

  33. 33.

    Eurobarometer Survey 431 2015.

  34. 34.

    Dutton and Blank 2013.

  35. 35.

    Previous versions were released in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011.

  36. 36.

    Note that it would have been possible to opt for five chapters each with eight sections on the different countries. However, we prefer to present the research results per country. In our experience, this improves readability, avoids repetition and overlap, and ensures improved reference and retrieval of information.

References

  • Bennett CJ (1992) Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockdorff N (2012) Quantitative Measurement of End-User Attitudes Towards Privacy. Work Package 7 of Consent. http://www.consent.law.muni.cz/

  • Cannataci J (2016) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, 8 March 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford D, Ausloos J (2017) Data Protection and the Role of Fairness Data Protection and the Role of Fairness. CiTiP Working Paper Series

    Google Scholar 

  • CONSENT (2012) Consumer sentiment regarding privacy on user generated content (UGC) services in the digital economy. https://www.consent.law.muni.cz/

  • Custers BHM, Calders T, Schermer B, Zarsky TZ (2013) Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society: Data Mining and Profiling in Large Databases. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Custers BHM, Dechesne F, Georgieva I, van der Hof S (2017) De bescherming van persoonsgegevens: Acht Europese landen vergeleken. SDU, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Custers BHM, Dechesne F, Sears AM, Tani T, van der Hof S (2018) A comparison of data protection legislation and policies across the EU. Computer Law and Security Review 34(2)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Custers BHM, van der Hof S, Schermer B (2014) Privacy Expectations of Social Media Users: The Role of Informed Consent in Privacy Policies. Policy and Internet 6(3): 268–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Custers BHM, Bachlechner D (2018) Advancing the EU Data Economy; Conditions for Realizing the Full Potential of Data Reuse. Information Polity. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-170419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton WH, Blank G (2013) Cultures of the Internet: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2013. http://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/reports

  • Eurobarometer Survey 431 (2015) Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union. Brussels, June 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaherty DH (1989) Protection Privacy in Surveillance Societies: The Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada and the United States. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Helberger N, Zuiderveen Borgesius F, Reyna A (2017) The perfect match? A closer look at the relationship between EU consumer law and data protection law. Common Market Law Review, 2017, no. 5, pp. 1427–1466

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2002) International agreements in the legal order of the candidate countries In: Ott A, Inglis K (eds) Handbook on European Enlargement. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, p. 209

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (2006) Code Version 2.0. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Malgieri G, Custers B (2017) Pricing privacy: the right to know the value of your personal data. Computer Law & Security Review. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3047257

  • Mulligan DK, Bamberger KA (2015) Privacy on the Ground; Driving Corporate Behavior in the United States and Europe. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg PA, Horne DR, Horne DA (2007) The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 100–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins JEJ (2004) The Propertization of Personal Data and Identities. EJCL. www.ejcl.org/83/art83-1.html

  • Purtova N (2015) The Illusion of Personal Data as No One’s Property. Law, Innovation and Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Roosendaal A, Ooms M, Hoepman JH (2015) Een raamwerk van indicatoren voor de bescherming van persoonsgegevens. Nederland ten opzichte van andere landen. TNO (WODC), Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Stucke M, Ezrachi A (2015) Artificial Intelligence & Collusion: When Computers Inhibit Competition. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 18/2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Ursic H, Custers BHM (2016) Legal Barriers and Enablers to Big Data Reuse – A Critical Assessment of the Challenges for the EU Law. European Data Protection Law Review 2(2): 209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedder AH, Custers BHM (2009) Whose responsibility is it anyway? Dealing with the consequences of new technologies. In: Sollie P, Duwell M (eds) Evaluating new technologies: Methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments. Springer, New York, pp. 21–34

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden Law School, eLaw (Center for Law and Digital Technologies), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Custers, Alan M. Sears, Francien Dechesne, Ilina Georgieva, Tommaso Tani & Simone van der Hof

Authors
  1. Bart Custers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan M. Sears
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francien Dechesne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ilina Georgieva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tommaso Tani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Simone van der Hof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Custers .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Custers, B., Sears, A.M., Dechesne, F., Georgieva, I., Tani, T., van der Hof, S. (2019). Introduction. In: EU Personal Data Protection in Policy and Practice. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 29. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-282-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-282-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-281-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-282-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation