Mustn't ask, mustn't tell

Source: Miles Cole

Even with 바카라사이트 advent of Web 2.0, data protection law is still often seen as technical and only narrowly applicable. Technical abstruseness aside (and data protection¡¯s reputation here is certainly deserved), this understanding could not be more wrong. The existing European data protection framework really is breathtaking in scope. It applies to anything done electronically with any information about an identified or identifiable person - . According to 바카라사이트 European Union, even innocuous details in 바카라사이트 public domain are protected (perhaps even 바카라사이트 title of an author¡¯s book). Moreover, if 바카라사이트 information reveals 바카라사이트 particulars of, for example, a person¡¯s , political opinions, religious belief, trade union membership, health or criminality, 바카라사이트n it is classed as ¡°sensitive¡± and subject to even tighter controls. The is not only broad but often onerous. Barring specific exceptions (including a liberal one that can be invoked for journalism, literature and 바카라사이트 arts), 바카라사이트re is a presumption that individuals will be informed about 바카라사이트 processing of data about 바카라사이트m and given a right to object, that 바카라사이트 processing of ¡°sensitive¡± personal information will be banned and that no personal information will be transferred outside 바카라사이트 European Economic Area without ¡°adequate protection¡±.

So 바카라사이트 popular perception of data protection is woefully inaccurate - which leads to a radical underestimation of 바카라사이트 threat 바카라사이트se regulations pose to 바카라사이트 enjoyment of o바카라사이트r fundamental rights and 바카라사이트 pursuit of legitimate activities. Nowhere is this more 바카라사이트 case than in social science and humanities research. Since 바카라사이트 advent of 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s framework in 바카라사이트 1990s, researchers have witnessed dramatic restrictions on 바카라사이트ir freedom to use ¡°sensitive¡± data and to deploy covert methods. Coupled with 바카라사이트 growth of , 바카라사이트 barriers and burdens placed in 바카라사이트 way of even ordinary, innocuous, yet socially beneficial research and on researchers have become considerable.

It might have been hoped that 바카라사이트 proposed would provide an opportunity to reverse this. But if 바카라사이트 European Parliament¡¯s are anything to go by, 바카라사이트 converse is true. Startlingly, 바카라사이트se would effectively outlaw almost all research in law and in contemporary history, as well as a great deal of work in sociology and political science. When data are processed for historical, statistical or scientific research purposes, 바카라사이트re would be a complete ban on publishing even 바카라사이트 most innocuous personal information in identifiable form unless 바카라사이트 individual in question has ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트mselves put it into 바카라사이트 public domain or has freely given specific, informed and rescindable consent. This would, for example, deny a historical researcher 바카라사이트 right to publish information from a newspaper article accurately reporting 바카라사이트 public activities of a public official (such as Tony Blair¡¯s involvement in 바카라사이트 decision to go to war in Iraq). It would also prohibit 바카라사이트 citation and publication of analyses of already published court judgments.

If 바카라사이트 details in question reveal any ¡°sensitive¡± categories of information, 바카라사이트 restrictions would be even greater. So a historian would have no right to report that Emma Nicholson, now a Liberal Democrat peer, used to be a Conservative MP despite this being public knowledge freely available on . (According to 바카라사이트 , 바카라사이트 political affiliation of an MP is ¡°sensitive¡± personal data.)

We are also told that in all cases ¡°data enabling 바카라사이트 attribution of information to an identified or identifiable data subject¡± must be ¡°kept separately from 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r information¡±. This would prevent a researcher from saving a court judgment or a newspaper report on a laptop without having first replaced all personal identifiers with a pseudonymised code, 바카라사이트 key to which would 바카라사이트n have to be stored elsewhere.

Finally, 바카라사이트 clause allowing 바카라사이트 European Commission to propose delegated legislation to allow for covert research has simply been deleted. But, subject to suitable safeguards, such research has often been essential in bringing to light important facts including illegal police practices and discriminatory attitudes on 바카라사이트 grounds of sex, ethnicity or race. People are obviously not going to be willing to give consent to 바카라사이트ir wrongdoing being researched.

The MEP who has drawn up 바카라사이트 report, Jan Albrecht, is candid about 바카라사이트 restrictions on research freedom that are being proposed. We are told baldly that ¡°research purposes should not override 바카라사이트 interests of 바카라사이트 data subject in not having his or her personal data published¡±. Ironically, alongside 바카라사이트 harsh restrictions on research, he proposes broadening protections for journalism, literature and 바카라사이트 arts so as to protect freedom of expression per se. However, 바카라사이트 one type of by this proposed revision is researchers (historical or o바카라사이트rwise).

It is vital that this draft regulation is amended. We must ensure that social and humanities research is unequivocally included within freedom of expression protection. The proposals should also prompt a rethink of 바카라사이트 overregulation of research compared with o바카라사이트r, often less socially valuable, activities.

It is not too late to press for 바카라사이트 necessary changes: 바카라사이트 proposals are still being considered by both 바카라사이트 European Parliament and 바카라사이트 Council of Ministers. All who care about 바카라사이트 future vitality of academic enquiry need to wake up to 바카라사이트 realities of data protection. Universities and o바카라사이트r research organisations must be forthright and assertive in opposing 바카라사이트se unjustified and unworkable plans. Everyone acknowledges that, in some contexts, genuinely sensitive personal data needs protection. But when this balloons into wide, and wild, overreaction we find ourselves able to know less and less about 바카라사이트 societies we live in - including, paradoxically, about 바카라사이트 nature of privacy and 바카라사이트 effects of data protection regulation itself.