Data Protection: IMCO Opinion : Différence entre versions
(Created page with "=Profiling= Three amendments <ref name="1">[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-500.411%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN IM...") |
|||
| Ligne 1 : | Ligne 1 : | ||
| + | This page aims to show and analyse the main points IMCO opinion focuses on. | ||
| + | |||
=Profiling= | =Profiling= | ||
Three amendments <ref name="1">[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-500.411%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN IMCO draft opinion]: amendment 293 proposed by Schaldemose, Hedth, Stihler (S&D); amendment 298 proposed by Corazza (EPP); amendment 313 proposed Engström (Greens)</ref> were aimed to prevent children from being subject to profiling, but they fell as the Compromised Amendment 9 <ref name="2">voted by the ALDE, EPP, ECR and EFD and based on amendments 290, 294 and 295 proposed by Harbour and Bielan (ECR) in [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-500.411%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN IMCO draft opinion].</ref>. This compromised amendment completely undermines Article 20, to the point that this article cannot prevent any form of profiling anymore, but merely prohibits unfair and discriminatory decisions based on automated process of personal data. | Three amendments <ref name="1">[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-500.411%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN IMCO draft opinion]: amendment 293 proposed by Schaldemose, Hedth, Stihler (S&D); amendment 298 proposed by Corazza (EPP); amendment 313 proposed Engström (Greens)</ref> were aimed to prevent children from being subject to profiling, but they fell as the Compromised Amendment 9 <ref name="2">voted by the ALDE, EPP, ECR and EFD and based on amendments 290, 294 and 295 proposed by Harbour and Bielan (ECR) in [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-500.411%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN IMCO draft opinion].</ref>. This compromised amendment completely undermines Article 20, to the point that this article cannot prevent any form of profiling anymore, but merely prohibits unfair and discriminatory decisions based on automated process of personal data. | ||
Version du 13 février 2013 à 12:49
This page aims to show and analyse the main points IMCO opinion focuses on.
Sommaire
Profiling
Three amendments Erreur de référence : Balise <ref> incorrecte ;
le nom ne peut être un entier simple. Utilisez un titre descriptif were aimed to prevent children from being subject to profiling, but they fell as the Compromised Amendment 9 Erreur de référence : Balise <ref> incorrecte ;
le nom ne peut être un entier simple. Utilisez un titre descriptif. This compromised amendment completely undermines Article 20, to the point that this article cannot prevent any form of profiling anymore, but merely prohibits unfair and discriminatory decisions based on automated process of personal data.
It is such a change that the article 20 even switches its title from ‘profiling’ to ‘automated process’.
However, amendment 233 proposed by Engström (Greens) still sets a right to object to profiling.
Data breach notification
Compromised amendment 10 Erreur de référence : Balise <ref> incorrecte ;
le nom ne peut être un entier simple. Utilisez un titre descriptif limits controllers’ obligation to notify to the breaches of significant effect and dismisses their obligation to notify within a 24 hours delay.
Consent
One of the major features of the Commission's Proposal Regulation is to require from the data subject a consent which is specific, informed and explicit. Requiring an explicit consent appears to be the most effective way to safeguard privacy. But the only amendment IMCO voted about consent was to redefine it as having to be given 'as explicit as possible according to the context', giving processors countless ways not to seek data subject's explicit consent.
Right to be forgotten and to erasure
Compromised amendment 8 (voted by Greens, S&D, ALDE, EPP, ECR, EFD) provides that a controller doesn't have to take all reasonable steps to inform third parties that a data subject has requested them to erase the data they hold where this data subject gave his consent to this controller to make these data public.
Anonymity
Compromised amendment 5 (voted by Greens, S&D, ALDE, EPP, ECR, EFD) provides that anonymous data (which cannot be attributed to anyone) are set out the scope of the regulation.
