﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		
		<title>2b-advice.com: Latest News</title>
		<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/</link>
		<description>2B Advice News</description>
		<language>de</language>
		
		<generator>TYPO3 - get.content.right</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		
		
		
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 09:37:00 +0200</lastBuildDate>
		
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: Official presentation of the planned European Data Protection Regulation</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2012/01/31/eu-offizielle-vorstellung-der-geplanten-europaeischen-datenschutzverordnung.html</link>
			<description>On 1/25/2012, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding officially presented the proposal of the...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In December 2011, the working document of the draft regulation was circulated on the internet. The basic tenor of the Commission’s proposal was already known when the document was officially adopted by the Commission on 1/25/2012.

The Commission’s proposal was referred to the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament on 1/27/2012, as these European institutions have the actual legislative power to carry out  the ordinary legislative procedure here (formerly known as the co-decision procedure). The Parliament and the Council will now examine the draft and submit changes. If the institutions fail to reach an agreement on legislation within two readings, a Conciliation Committee will be formed. Within the framework of this last reading, both the Council and the Parliament may reject the proposal.

Since the Commission’s proposal does not aim to regulate data protection as it is currently done in the form of a directive that allows for discretion on the national level, but rather in a regulation that would be directly applicable in Member States, the Member States would lose much of their national authority over data protection. It remains to be seen how this impending loss of competence of the Member States will affect the legislative process. It is, however, certain that the Commission’s proposal is already being hotly debated as well as sharply criticized with regard to content. Observers estimate that a final decision is not expected within the next eighteen months.. 
Nevertheless, companies should look into the possible rules of the Data Protection Regulation in advance. Above all, proposed rules such as a regular data protection impact assessment require significant preparation time to implement on the corporate level.

For more information:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_de.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:05:00 +0100</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: EDPS presents its activities planned for 2012</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2012/01/31/eu-edsb-stellt-ausblick-fuer-taetigkeiten-2012-vor.html</link>
			<description>In a press release dated January 10, 2012, European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx issued...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The European Data Protection Supervisor is an independent authority tasked with protecting personal data and privacy at a European level. To fulfill this obligation, it supervises the processing of personal data of the EU administration and works with similar authorities to ensure standardized data protection. It also has an advisory role at  political level when provisions and legislation impact privacy protection.

The European Data Protection Supervisor has now defined the key issues for the year 2012, giving companies a trend-setting impetus for the future development of data protection policies. 
The key focus in 2012 will be the revision of the European legal framework for data protection. Currently, data protection at the European level is regulated through a directive. A directive defines only a minimum standard that, in the relevant case, must be implemented by the Member States. In addition, however, more stringent national regulations may be applied. This directive is supposed to be converted into a regulation. A regulation – which would directly apply in all Member States – would result in maximum harmonization of data protection in the European Union and the European Economic Area.

Regarding technological developments related to the Digital Agenda, the inclusion of the item "Cloud computing services" as another focus is to be especially welcomed.

In addition, negotiations on data protection agreements with third countries are planned.

This selection of topics from the press release suggests that it has been recognized that a simplification and standardization of data protection at European level meets the needs of the economy. To what extent these ambitious goals can be achieved in 2012 remains to be seen.
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: The CJEU Steps In Regarding the Harmonization of Data Protection</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/12/28/eu-eugh-greift-bei-vereinheitlichung-des-datenschutzes-durch.html</link>
			<description>In its ruling of 24.11.2011, the European Court of Justice clearly states that Member States have...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The case dealt with the compliance of the Spanish law, which makes data processing for legitimate interests legal only when the data originates from public sources, with Article 7(f) of the Data Protection Directive. According to the statements by the CJEU, Article 7 contains a conclusive list of lawful uses and requirements for legality. The Spanish law unduly added an obstacle to legality with the additional requirement "from sources accessible to the public".
This hinders free movement of data within Europe. The lawmaker's right to interpret, as granted by the Directive, does not apply in this case because it only can take effect if there is a degree of flexibility present. This is not the case under the clearly specific regulation of Art. 7 of the Directive. At best, it is possible for lawmakers to provide guidelines for balancing interests when implementing Art. 7(f).
Furthermore, the CJEU determined that Art. 7 of the Directive is specific enough that it can take direct effect in the Member States. 
A debate will now begin among Member States as to whether certain national standards are to be viewed as illegal additional obstacles or, whether they are meant solely  as guidelines for the balancing of interests.
The question of how the free movement of data can be made possible when guidelines for balancing interests in the Member States lead to completely different results certainly needs to be posed. It is also debatable, whether a directive may be so specifically interpreted that there is no more leeway for balancing interests.

Further information:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0468:en:HTML
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: New details on EU data protection reform</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/12/13/eu-neue-details-zur-eu-datenschutzreform.html</link>
			<description>There is a version of the draft of the EU data protection regulation available on the internet...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[1. Regulation rather than directive
The first thing that is new is that the EU's new data protection legislation is to be clothed as a regulation rather than as a directive. In view of the fact that a regulation has a direct effect, this step is a useful attempt to harmonize data protection within Europe. Below you will find a brief overview of some of the coming innovations.
2. Consent as a central precondition for legitimacy
The legitimacy of data processing is to be tied much more clearly to effective consent for data processing. This is particularly the case in the field of direct marketing. Data processing that is to be carried out for this purpose should only continue to be possible if the data subject has provided consent (Art. 5 paragraph 2). The draft does not envisage exceptions, as allowed for by the German Federal Data Protection Act.
3. Strict requirements when handling data relating to children
The new regulations take data protection for children into consideration. Previously there were no specific regulations in this area. For the purposes of the draft, children are defined as persons aged under 18 years (Art. 3 No. 18). The processing of children's personal data is dealt with in a particularly restrictive manner in the draft. The draft envisions that, when weighing up the arguments for and against, in the case of children's data the protection of children's rights and freedoms should carry greater weight than the legitimate interests of the data processor (Art. 5 paragraph 1 (f) (ii)). But there are additional complications with regard to the processing of children's data. A child's consent is only valid if either the parents or a representative of the child have provided or approved consent (Art. 7 paragraph 6). The draft also envisions that particular standards should apply with regard to the intelligibility of information when that information refers to children (Art. 9 paragraph 2). There are also substantial restrictions (Art. 18 paragraph 3) when it comes to so-called "profiling" with regard to children. If children's data are involved in certain processing methods, it will be necessary to carry out a data protection impact assessment (Art. 30 paragraph 2 (d)) on a regular basis. When so-called "codes of conduct" are being drawn up, these must also contain regulations to ensure data protection in the case of children's data (Art. 35). 
4. "Right to be forgotten"
The draft envisions a "right to be forgotten". Under this provision, data processors who have placed data relating to the data subject in the public domain and whose data are now to be deleted must also ensure that links on their web pages to such data on third party web pages are removed. They must also ensure that these data cannot be reproduced via other publicly available sources under their control (Art. 15 paragraph 2).
The draft reacts to the recent increasingly heated debate regarding the transfer of personal data to courts and investigation authorities outside the EU by requiring that data should not be transferred until after the relevant supervisory authority has granted approval for this (Art. 31 paragraph 1 (a)). This provision should lift some of the burden from the shoulders of the decision-makers in the data processor's office, who are confronted by this question. 
5. Data Protection Impact Assessment
Another new requirement is the need for a data protection impact assessment in the case of certain data processing procedures. The provision extends the familiar prior-checking procedure. Prior checking is required where processing affects the evaluation of the data subject or the prediction of a probable future method of behavior, where particular types of data are processed, where video surveillance is processed, where data relating to children, genetic data or biometric data are processed or in the case of a procedure which will require the involvement of the supervisory authority.
The assessment must include at least the following points: a general description of the relevant processing method, the potential risks of these methods for the rights and freedoms of the users, measures, provisions and security measures required to ensure data protection, having due regard to the legitimate interests of the data subject.
Further details regarding the content and form of the assessment are to be addressed in additional legislation (Art. 30 paragraphs 6 and 7).
6. Binding Corporate Rules
According to the draft, the "Binding Corporate Rules" (BCR), which have already received close attention in the working documents of the Article 29 group, are to be part of the regulation and could lead to permissible data transfers to third countries (Art. 39 paragraph 2 (a)).  The draft contains regulations as to the minimum content of the Binding Corporate Rules (Art. 40 paragraph 2) as well as the procedures required to obtain approval. The draft envisions additional legislation with regard to further requirements in respect of the Binding Corporate Rules.
7. Data protection officer
According to the draft, organizations with 250 or more employees must appoint a data protection officer (Art. 32 paragraph 1 (b)). Although there is no strict obligation to do so, smaller organizations can voluntarily appoint a data protection officer. The data protection officer can be an internal appointment or can be engaged as an external service provider (Art. 32 paragraph 6). The name and contact details of the data protection officer must be advised to the relevant supervisory authority as well as to the general public (Art. 32 paragraph 7). The draft envisions that certain minimum requirements must be applied to the standard of qualification expected of the data protection officer. Further details regarding the standard of qualifications of the data protection officer, his position and his tasks, are to be included in delegate acts (Art. 33 paragraph 9; Art. 34 paragraph 2).
8. Relevant supervisory authority
At first glance, the responsibility of the supervisory authorities is to be drastically simplified. For organizations that operate throughout Europe, it is exclusively the supervisory authority in the member state where they have their main branch that will be responsible for supervision. By definition, the main branch should be the branch in which their data protection purposes, conditions and measures are determined, i.e. where management decisions in respect of data protection are taken. Preliminary remark 83 makes it clear that the location in which actual data protection is carried out is not the basis for this determination. This definition reaches its limits if, by using modern communications opportunities, not only does data processing take place across a range of member states but even the organization's management itself no longer sits in one central location in order to take decisions; in other words, there is no longer any physical company headquarters. So if managing partners of equal status meet together in a virtual head office to coordinate decisions and if it becomes necessary in this environment for a decision to be taken as to the purpose and nature of data processing, it would be legitimate to raise the question as to whether the location of the server that facilitates the virtual conference room should be the connecting factor. If the new provisions are to be future-proof, the possibilities and realities of what is already a highly integrated business world need to be taken into account in this regard.
9. Authorization and prior inclusion of the supervisory authority
The existing reporting obligation is to be extensively removed. Instead, the draft includes regulations which envision the involvement of the supervisory authorities in the case of certain data processes. For instance, the supervisory authorities should be consulted if the data protection assessment leads to the conclusion that particular data processing is coupled with a high risk for the data subject or if the supervisory authority regards it as necessary to become involved prior to the start of processing. There needs to be a list of processes with specific risks, for this purpose. This will be included in separate legislation (Art. 31 paragraph 8), as will standard pro forms and procedures on how consultations are to be carried out (Art, 31 paragraph 9). The data protection officer will be regarded as the contact person in this respect. He must supervise the data protection assessment and the application to the supervisory authorities for authorization of a particular process. 
It is therefore not accurate to say that there has been a complete removal of reporting obligations. However, there has been a distinct change in character. Over and above the mere information that a particular processing method exists, the supervisory authority is now called upon to actively consider the reported process and to react.
We hope this article has introduced some of the highlights of the draft to you. In the days and weeks ahead we will provide you with separate articles containing further details and considerations that could lead to particular effects on businesses.

Further Information:
http://statewatch.org/news/2011/dec/eu-com-draft-dp-reg-inter-service-consultation.pdf
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:55:00 +0100</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: Viviane Reding on the future of transatlantic information sharing</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/12/10/eu-viviane-reding-zur-zukunft-des-transatlantischen-datenaustauschs.html</link>
			<description>In her speech at the 2nd Annual European Data Protection and Privacy Conference, Viviane Reding,...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Mrs. Reding again emphasized that data protection must not become a stumbling block for transatlantic business, while on the other hand individual rights of those involved in such business transactions must be upheld. First she traced back the situation as it stands in Europe, highlighting the planned simplifications in the area of Binding Corporate Rules and the standardization and simplification of the European Data Protection Law. In this respect she made it clear, that according to her draft proposal of the revised data protection guideline for European companies, solely the supervisory body of that member state ought to be responsible in which the principle place of business is situated. This ought to go hand in hand with a harmonization of the European Data Protection Law. 
As regards to cloud computing, Mrs. Reding addressed the necessary data portability and stressed that a respective individual ought to obtain more control over his or her data in future. 
One aspect that can also be of importance in transatlantic data protection relations, was law enforcement and judicial cooperation. In this segment a further harmonization in terms of data transfers to countries outside of the EU was intended. She said the discussion around the impact of the Patriot Act had already resulted in great uncertainties in the area of cloud computing. 
At the end of her speech Mrs. Reding expressed her concern that the self-regulation approach applied in the USA in the area of data protection was not sufficient enough to achieve compatibility with the EU. 
Following Mrs. Reding's recent review of potential new changes to the data protection guideline, more and more details are now emerging. In view of the easing and simplification of the information sharing with the USA it is indeed of great importance whether there is going to be a binding obligation about legal regulations as regards to the data protection standard in the USA, or whether the USA will continue to trust in self-regulation. If the latter is the case, checking the safe harbor preconditions, the use of EU standard contract clauses, or the existence of binding corporate rules, will play an important part. In these cases the simplified approval procedure could mean an easing of the burden on European data transmitters. 
The practical problem of access to personal data by police or jurisdiction remains for those companies involved in transatlantic operations. In this area Mrs. Reding did not disclose any concrete details. If one wanted to protect the data from access by police and investigating authorities outside of Europe, the regulations would have to be inherently connected to the data to effectively prevent illegitimate access under European data protection law. This kind of balancing act is unlikely to be successful if the EU was to attempt this single-handedly. This area needs further agreement with the USA so as to improve compatibility. 
Further information at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/851&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:43:00 +0100</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: Revision of the EU Data Protection Directive - the fog is lifting</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/12/06/eu-ueberarbeitung-der-eu-datenschutzrichtlinie-der-nebel-lichtet-sich.html</link>
			<description>The time for presenting the draft of the revised EU Data Protection Directive is getting closer. In...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The following two main objectives of the reform have been recognized for quite some time. Data subjects should be given greater control over their own data, and data protection law in the member states should be standardized in order to create a level playing field for organizations throughout Europe. In her speech Mrs. Reding set out how these objectives might be achieved. Corporations are likely to be particularly interested in the revelation that there is a willingness to re-think old habits. One example of this is that there will no longer be a general obligation to register data protection processes with the supervisory authorities.

And corporations that operate throughout Europe and have branches in a variety of different countries should also sit up and pay attention. Mrs. Reding revealed a willingness to reduce the administrative burden that these corporations face simply because they are subject to a wide range of regulations and have to deal with various different supervisory authorities. In the future these corporations shall be subject to just one set of regulations and shall face supervision by just one central authority.
Another area getting a re-think is the method by which data is conveyed. Mrs. Reding is focusing here on Binding Corporate Rules which, in the revised procedure, should facilitate faster and less expensive approval.

The advantages provided by the new regulations are counter-balanced by some new duties which corporations have to accept. In particular, the transparency of data processing is to be augmented. In order to improve transparency there is to be, amongst other things, a general obligation to report instances where third parties acquire unauthorized access to personal data - in short, data breaches - and this will form part of the new regulations.

Up to this point speeches and announcements have principally focused on objectives; with this speech, however, we are beginning to see some of the possible structures of the forthcoming Data Protection Directive. There is a strong likelihood that the structures referred to will be included in the draft, given that the draft is due to be published at the beginning of 2012; this rather suggests that key regulations and corner stones must have been agreed already. Corporations that operate throughout Europe should pay particular attention and can look forward to a significant reduction in the administrative burdens caused by registration requirements. However, the jury is still out when it comes the effects that will be felt in reality when the branches of individual corporations come to deal with possible foreign legislation and foreign languages.

Further information:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/827&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 05:49:00 +0100</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: First Draft of Revised Data Protection Directive end of January 2012?</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/11/17/eu-erster-entwurf-der-ueberarbeiteten-datenschutzrichtlinie-ende-januar-2012.html</link>
			<description>The first draft of the revised Data Protection Directive 95/46 EC is set to be published at the end...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Together, Ms. Reding and Ms. Aigner emphasized that European data protection regulations must also be complied with by companies that are not based in Europe, but who nonetheless offer their services to European consumers. This applies especially to operators of social networks and cloud services. In future, a mandatory prerequisite for processing consumers' personal data shall be the express consent to process such data. Furthermore, consumers should be able to delete data autonomously at any time. This shall apply especially to data that they themselves have posted on the Internet.

Should the announced rights be drawn up in a draft proposal, companies would have to consider how to apply the standards in practice. If the user is to be granted the "autonomous" right to delete data uploaded by him/herself onto the Internet, Online services will have to provide for an effective deletion procedure, which the user of the service can initiate. The question as to what should happen with copies that were made by third parties in the meantime also remains unresolved, however, at this point. Should the deletion claim also refer to this data, this shall necessitate a justified legal claim against these third parties to be effective.

The German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), according to § 1 Subsection 5 Page 2 of the BDSG, is currently applicable if the responsible entity collects, processes, or uses data domestically and does not have a registered office in the EU (Article 4 No. 1, Letter (c) Directive 95/46/EC). In the past, it has proven difficult to pursue claims against companies based outside of the EU. It seems unlikely, that there may be a possibility in the future to "ban" such companies from the European market on the basis of data protection violations. It will be interesting to see whether Ms. Reding and Ms. Aigner's wish that "anyone who does not comply should not be allowed to do business in our single market" becomes a reality.

Furhter information:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/762&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:35:00 +0100</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: Vice President calls for measures to promote trust in online targeting</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/06/24/eu-vize-praesidentin-fordert-massnahmen-zur-vertrauensbildung-beim-online-targeting.html</link>
			<description>Ms. Neelie Kroes is Vice President of the European Commission and is responsible for the &quot;Digital...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In her speech, Ms. Kroes noted that the amendments made to the "ePrivacy Directive" were not being fully implemented. Only five Member States reported taking steps toward implementation. The amendments to the ePrivacy Directive concern, among other things, the handling of cookies, especially as they are used in online targeting.

Online targeting helps companies tailor advertisements to individual users, thereby avoiding 'scatter losses' during advertising campaigns. Tracking goes one step further, ensuring that users are confronted with the same advertisement as they browse through a series of web pages. This process uses, in addition to cookies, browser add-ons such as “browser fingerprinting”.

Ms. Kroes first called on the advertising sector to practice more self-regulation, especially by providers offering “behavioural advertising”. She referred to the fundamental elements in this area as transparency, self-regulation and new technologies and said that relying on users being able to deactivate cookies in their browsers was nowhere near sufficient.

Initiatives that would label targeted advertising with an identifying symbol would be welcome, she said. Users would then be able to click for more information on how the targeting works, on different kinds of targeting, and on the opt-out option.

She also identified techniques such as “Do-Not-Track” (DNT) as steps in the right direction, noting however that the standards required have yet to be drafted. With DNT in the browser, users can set their preference not to be tracked. Web page operators could then read this information and cease certain tracking measures. Ms. Kroes called on those involved to pass a DNT standard by June 2012.

Should self-regulation initiatives not lead to tangible improvement, Ms. Kroes announced, she would use all means available to her to extend the applicability of data protection to this area as well.

Companies in the sector should take advantage of the opportunity for self-regulation. The goal are clear and consistent standards – and above all, binding standards. If companies fail to take the opportunity, she noted, the legislative authority would fill the regulatory gaps as it sees fit. Compared to the often long and drawn-out process of legislation, self-regulation can produce clear structures for companies and for those affected much more quickly.

More information:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/461&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:11:00 +0200</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>EU: Commission launches a public consultation on Cloud computing</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/05/18/eu-kommission-startet-meinungsumfrage-zu-cloud-computing.html</link>
			<description>In the context of what has been styled the Digital Agenda, the Commission is appealing especially...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The aim of the Digital Agenda is to create a single digital market within Europe in order to allow European citizens to make safe use of, and to benefit from, all the advantages of the new digital era.

The initial finding of the Vice President of the Commission with responsibility for the Digital Agenda, Ms. Neelie Kroes, is that Cloud computing offers significant advantages in respect of cost savings and the availability of state-of-the-art services also for small and medium-sized enterprises. What is needed, however, is a well-formulated strategy to realize the full benefit of these advantages. The strategy should, among other things, provide answers to the following questions:

Which requirements arise in relation to data privacy and liability, with particular reference to transnational issues?

Which other legal or technical obstacles can inhibit the development of Cloud computing in Europe?

To what extent is there a need for standardization and interoperability?

Which questions arise in relation to the introduction of Cloud services, especially amongst small and medium-sized enterprises?

Which options for research and innovation subsidization in the Cloud computing field already exist or would be desirable?

Enterprises have the opportunity in the context of this consultation to indicate the current legal and de facto uncertainties and barriers affecting Cloud services. Businesses should use the opportunity that presents itself to actively participate in the development of a legal and technical framework for Cloud services in Europe in order to contribute to the creation of a workable, reliable, secure and sustainable framework for Cloud computing.

The following link will take you to the consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch

Further information:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/575&format=HTML&aged=0&language=DE&guiLanguage=en

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm


]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 13:17:00 +0200</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>On May 25, 2011, the deadline for implementing the European Cookie Directive expires</title>
			<link>http://www.2b-advice.com/no_cache/en/service/newscast/2b/news/2011/05/16/eu-am-25-mai-2011-laeuft-umsetzungsfrist-der-europaeischen-cookie-richtlinie-aus.html</link>
			<description>In the UK there is currently a lively discussion about the implementation of EU directives on...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[British Data Privacy Commissioner Christopher Graham is among the first to publish a recommendation for implementing the so-called European Cookie Directive.

Browser cookies are used by Internet service providers to obtain information about the usage behavior of Internet users. Up until this point there has been criticism that users do not have any influence on cookie data, and that they are generally unaware of the content, extent and duration of data storage.

According to press reports on this subject, the German Federal Data Privacy Commissioner, Peter Schaar, also sees a need for legislative action with the purpose of only allowing cookies if the user gives his/her informed consent. Consent must occur on the basis of clear and comprehensive information. A required legal provision, for example, could be incorporated into the German Telemedia Act.

The principal supervisory authorities for data privacy in the non-public sector (Düsseldorfer Kreis) already called for legislative action as long ago as November 2010.

Discussion is ongoing with regard to other solutions on the subject of content. On the one hand, consent could be given by means of a one-off adjustment to browser settings. Other discussions center around whether a banner icon could appear on the website, providing the user with the necessary information. 

Nor has it been decided yet whether different levels of consent could be necessary depending on the cookies’ degree of invasiveness. Flash cookies could, for example, only be acceptable with express permission; however, essential session cookies could be acceptable even without consent.

All companies that use the Internet must be prepared to respond to the future requirement that the European regulations must be displayed on their websites. In the future, the user's informed consent will be required if cookies are used on the website.


More information: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0011:01:DE:HTML

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/pressreleases/2011/cookies_regulations_advice_news_release_20110509.ashx

http://www.bfdi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/Entschliessungssammlung/DuesseldorferKreis/24112010-UmsetzungDatenschutzrichtlinie.pdf?__blob=publicationFile 
]]></content:encoded>
			<category>Nachrichten</category>
			
			<author>info@2b-advice.com</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 08:14:00 +0200</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
