110 likes | 164 Vues
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
E N D
Professor Joel R. ReidenbergStanley D. and Nikki Waxberg ChairAcademic Director, Center on Law & Information PolicyFordham University School of LawNew York, NY
Overview • Basic rules for data retention and access in the US and Europe • Intractable Conflicts • The Privacy Turning Point
Basic Rules: U.S. Data Retention 47 C.F.R. 42.6 Corporate practice
Basic Rules: EU Data Retention • Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection) • Directive 2002/58/EC (E-Privacy) • Directive 2006/24/EC (Data Retention)
Basic Rules: U.S. Data Access Constitutional limits 4th Amendment 3rd Party Doctrine Contents/Traffic ECPA (1986) Warrant, Subpoena Admin Subpoena
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
Intractable Conflicts Context Source: Google Transparency Report (as of 12/31/2012)
Intractable Conflicts • Elusive Linkage between Retention and Access US: Emphasis on regulation of access Statutory weakness EU: Emphasis on regulation of retention Blurry access controls ‘Constitutional’ limits (e.g. Germany)
Intractable Conflicts • Enforcement Burden Contradictions Sheriff Role of Private Sector Directive 1995/46/EC vs. data retention Proportionality Problem Function creep (e.g. French LCEN)
The Privacy Turning Point: An impossible dilemma Transparent citizens Reversal of presumption of innocence Reduction of zone of individual freedom Diffusion of state police power Expansion to private matters (e.g. IP)
Conclusion Couple 1) Collection/storage limits 2) Strict, specific access limits