Data Protection: Legislative Procedure : Différence entre versions

De La Quadrature du Net
Aller à la navigationAller à la recherche
 
(18 révisions intermédiaires par 2 utilisateurs non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
This page lists the EU Parliament committees' opinion regarding the [http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/files/download/082dbcc534ad5cc601351ebb99a0051e.do General Data Protection Regulation] proposed by the Commission.
+
{{Infobox Version          
 +
|en=:Data Protection: Committees' Opinion          
 +
|fr=:Data protection: l'avis des commissions         
 +
}}
  
=IMCO=
+
This page tries to explain the european legislative procedure, and more specificaly the one regarding the [http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/files/download/082dbcc534ad5cc601351ebb99a0051e.do General Data Protection Regulation] proposed by the Commission.
==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">Compromised amendment 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> was voted by the ALDE, EPP, ECR and EFD. 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.
+
=The involved committees and their role=
 +
On 25 January 2012, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation on Data Protection, aimed to repeal the 1995 Directive on Personal Data Protection and to offer better protection to data subjects.
 +
The European Parliament [[Data protection: LIBE|LIBE]] committee (the part of the Parliament focusing on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs issues) was chosen to propose, on 24 and 25 April, the amendments that will be added to the proposal. Then, the Parliament will vote the Regulation with these amendments on plenary later this year.
  
 +
Until then, four other committees will assist LIBE by issuing their own opinion on the amendments they think wise to propose.
 +
On 23 January 2012, [[Data_Protection:_IMCO|IMCO]] (which deals with Internal Market and Consumer Protection), the first committee to be solicited, issued its opinion.
 +
On 20 and 21 February, [[Data_Protection:_ITRE|ITRE]] (Industry, Research and Energy) and [[Data protection: EMPL|EMPL]] (Employment and Social Affairs) will issue theirs and [[Data Protection: JURI|JURI]] (Legal Affairs) will finally issue its on 19 March.
  
<references />
+
=Understanding Compromised Amendments=
<references />
+
For instance, ITRE members has already proposed almost a thousand amendments. On 21 February, ITRE will have to vote whether to incorporate each one of them into its final opinion or not - which would take an unnecessarily high amount of time and effort. Thus, several amendments being often aimed to modify the same article of the Regulation, committee's members can avoid to vote multiple times on the same issues by gathering these amendments around a single « compromised amendment » - that will only be voted once and, if voted, make the other amendments being automatically rejected.
  
==Data breach notification==
+
As such, a compromised amendment's main purpose could seem to be to shorten the debate's duration. But the amendments that can be rejected because of its vote may have actually matter, as some of them may provide some unique approaches on critical issues. Thus, compromised amendments could easily be used to water down such approaches and to promote others and must be observed as such.
 +
Finally, their content having been negotiated by the whole committee, compromised amendments may provide some clues on the major amendments it will ultimately vote.
  
Compromised amendment 10 <ref name="3">Based on Amendment 358 proposed by Schwab and Trzaskowski (EPP) and Voted by ALDE, EPP, ECR and EFD.</ref> limits controllers’ obligation to notify to the breaches of significant effect and dismisses their obligation to notify within a 24 hours delay.
+
[[Category:Data Protection|committees opinion]]
 
 
 
 
<references />
 
 
 
==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 <ref name="4">Voted by Greens, S&D, ALDE, EPP, ECR, EFD</ref> 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.
 
 
 
 
 
<references />
 
 
 
==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.
 
 
 
 
 
=JURI=
 
 
 
=EMPL=
 
 
 
=ITRE=
 
 
 
=LIBE=
 

Version actuelle datée du 13 février 2013 à 21:39


This page tries to explain the european legislative procedure, and more specificaly the one regarding the General Data Protection Regulation proposed by the Commission.

The involved committees and their role[modifier]

On 25 January 2012, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation on Data Protection, aimed to repeal the 1995 Directive on Personal Data Protection and to offer better protection to data subjects. The European Parliament LIBE committee (the part of the Parliament focusing on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs issues) was chosen to propose, on 24 and 25 April, the amendments that will be added to the proposal. Then, the Parliament will vote the Regulation with these amendments on plenary later this year.

Until then, four other committees will assist LIBE by issuing their own opinion on the amendments they think wise to propose. On 23 January 2012, IMCO (which deals with Internal Market and Consumer Protection), the first committee to be solicited, issued its opinion. On 20 and 21 February, ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy) and EMPL (Employment and Social Affairs) will issue theirs and JURI (Legal Affairs) will finally issue its on 19 March.

Understanding Compromised Amendments[modifier]

For instance, ITRE members has already proposed almost a thousand amendments. On 21 February, ITRE will have to vote whether to incorporate each one of them into its final opinion or not - which would take an unnecessarily high amount of time and effort. Thus, several amendments being often aimed to modify the same article of the Regulation, committee's members can avoid to vote multiple times on the same issues by gathering these amendments around a single « compromised amendment » - that will only be voted once and, if voted, make the other amendments being automatically rejected.

As such, a compromised amendment's main purpose could seem to be to shorten the debate's duration. But the amendments that can be rejected because of its vote may have actually matter, as some of them may provide some unique approaches on critical issues. Thus, compromised amendments could easily be used to water down such approaches and to promote others and must be observed as such. Finally, their content having been negotiated by the whole committee, compromised amendments may provide some clues on the major amendments it will ultimately vote.