Annotatie Hof van Justitie van de EU 28 april 2022 (Meta Platforms Ireland / Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 21, num: 194, pp: 3621-3623, 2023

Facebook, Persoonsgegevens, Privacy

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie Hof van Justitie van de EU 28 april 2022 (Meta Platforms Ireland / Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://dev.ivir.nl/publications/annotatie-hof-van-justitie-van-de-eu-28-april-2022-meta-platforms-ireland-bundesverband-der-verbraucherzentralen-und-verbraucherverbande/annotatie_nj_2023_194/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-07-11}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, issue = {21}, number = {194}, keywords = {Facebook, Persoonsgegevens, Privacy}, }

Opinie: Internetproletariërs aller landen verenigt u! download

Mediaforum, iss. : 3, pp: 85, 2023

Facebook, Internet, moderators

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Opinie: Internetproletariërs aller landen verenigt u!}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://dev.ivir.nl/publications/opinie-internetproletariers-aller-landen-verenigt-u/opinie_dommering_mediaforum-2023-3/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-06-30}, journal = {Mediaforum}, issue = {3}, keywords = {Facebook, Internet, moderators}, }

Schrems II and Surveillance: Third Countries’ National Security Powers in the Purview of EU Law, European Law Blog external link

2020

Abstract

On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) composed as Grand Chamber delivered its landmark ruling Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (case C-311/18, “Schrems II”). The focus of my commentary will be on the aspect that EU law on cross-border transfers of personal data to a third country is not deferential to national security powers of that third country. This judgment is remarkable provided that electronic surveillance conducted by Member States’ intelligence authorities for the purpose of national security is off limits for EU law and that exceptions in international agreement are fairly regularly made for national security. This contribution will deal with the embedded assessment of a third country’s national security powers under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, GDPR) and will address the criticism that a third country is held to stricter standards than a Member State of the Union.

adequacy decision, C-311/18, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Facebook, frontpage, GDPR, General Data Protection Regulation, national security, Privacy Shield, Schrems II, Standard Contractual Clauses, Surveillance, united states

Bibtex

Online publication{Irion2020c, title = {Schrems II and Surveillance: Third Countries’ National Security Powers in the Purview of EU Law, European Law Blog}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/07/24/schrems-ii-and-surveillance-third-countries-national-security-powers-in-the-purview-of-eu-law/}, year = {0724}, date = {2020-07-24}, abstract = {On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) composed as Grand Chamber delivered its landmark ruling Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (case C-311/18, “Schrems II”). The focus of my commentary will be on the aspect that EU law on cross-border transfers of personal data to a third country is not deferential to national security powers of that third country. This judgment is remarkable provided that electronic surveillance conducted by Member States’ intelligence authorities for the purpose of national security is off limits for EU law and that exceptions in international agreement are fairly regularly made for national security. This contribution will deal with the embedded assessment of a third country’s national security powers under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, GDPR) and will address the criticism that a third country is held to stricter standards than a Member State of the Union.}, keywords = {adequacy decision, C-311/18, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Facebook, frontpage, GDPR, General Data Protection Regulation, national security, Privacy Shield, Schrems II, Standard Contractual Clauses, Surveillance, united states}, }

Operationalizing Research Access in Platform Governance: What to learn from other industries? external link

Abstract

A new study published by AlgorithmWatch, in cooperation with the European Policy Centre and the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law, shows that the GDPR needn’t stand in the way of meaningful research access to platform data; looks to health and environmental sectors for best practices in privacy-respecting data sharing frameworks.

Facebook, frontpage, governance, Platforms, research access

Bibtex

Report{Ausloos2020b, title = {Operationalizing Research Access in Platform Governance: What to learn from other industries?}, author = {Ausloos, J. and Leerssen, P. and Thije, P. ten}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/GoverningPlatforms_IViR_study_June2020-AlgorithmWatch-2020-06-24.pdf}, year = {0625}, date = {2020-06-25}, abstract = {A new study published by AlgorithmWatch, in cooperation with the European Policy Centre and the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law, shows that the GDPR needn’t stand in the way of meaningful research access to platform data; looks to health and environmental sectors for best practices in privacy-respecting data sharing frameworks.}, keywords = {Facebook, frontpage, governance, Platforms, research access}, }

How Should Facebook and Other Companies Protect Privacy While Letting People Share Their Information Between Apps and Services? external link

Abstract

Blogpost part of a series on data portability and interoperability.

data portability, Facebook, frontpage, interoperabiliteit, Privacy

Bibtex

Online publication{vanEijk2018i, title = {How Should Facebook and Other Companies Protect Privacy While Letting People Share Their Information Between Apps and Services?}, author = {van Eijk, N.}, url = {https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/08/guest-post-nico-van-eijk/}, year = {0807}, date = {2018-08-07}, abstract = {Blogpost part of a series on data portability and interoperability.}, keywords = {data portability, Facebook, frontpage, interoperabiliteit, Privacy}, }

Facebook is a new breed of editor: a social editor external link

Abstract

Facebook’s approach to allowing, censoring or prioritising content that appears in the news feed has recently been the focus of much attention, both media and governmental. Professor Natali Helberger of the Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam argues that we need to seek to understand the new kind of editorial role that Facebook is playing, in order to know how to tackle the questions it raises.

editor, Facebook, frontpage, media law and policy, social

Bibtex

Online publication{Helberger2016, title = {Facebook is a new breed of editor: a social editor}, author = {Helberger, N.}, url = {http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2016/09/15/facebook-is-a-new-breed-of-editor-a-social-editor/}, year = {0916}, date = {2016-09-16}, abstract = {Facebook’s approach to allowing, censoring or prioritising content that appears in the news feed has recently been the focus of much attention, both media and governmental. Professor Natali Helberger of the Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam argues that we need to seek to understand the new kind of editorial role that Facebook is playing, in order to know how to tackle the questions it raises.}, keywords = {editor, Facebook, frontpage, media law and policy, social}, }