This week, AK EUROPA, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour and ÖGB Europabüro, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federation of Trade Unions hosted a panel discussion on the subject of data protection in the 21st century. New technologies provide companies with increasingly more options to monitor and analyse their (potential) customers without their knowledge. This does not only represent an intrusion into personal integrity, but may also have a financial impact on consumers, for example if pricing is individually adapted to the purchasing power and needs of customers. Hence, the utilisation of data is a profitable business in itself (“Big Data”), which the EU intends to drive forward within the scope of its agenda on the Digital Single Market. At the Permanent Representation of Austria to the EU in Brussels, four distinguished experts discussed the future of data protection in Europe in the conflict area between privacy and commercial use.

Wolfie CHRISTL, technology expert, researcher and network activist presented the study “Kommerzielle digitale Überwachung im Alltag“ - Commercial Digital Surveillance in Everyday Life, which he prepared on behalf of the Chamber of Labour. Based on selected problem areas and examples, he provided an overview of international trends in the increasing collection and usage of personal data by companies and outlined possible effects on everyday life. He described in detail how companies had one way or other committed to trading with personal data. These developments and practices would clearly show that a form of surveillance society had become reality, in which the population was constantly classified and sorted on the basis of personal data. He warned that future digital surveillance could have a drastic impact on society, democracy and the autonomy of the individual. Concluding his comments, CHRISTL supported the creation of more transparency with regard to the practices of companies and thereby clearly a new Data Protection Regulation to ensure that future rules could no longer be made by companies.

Josef WEIDENHOLZER (Member of the European Parliaments S&D faction) commented that something had to be done to counteract the “gold digger mentality” in the area of data use (“Big Data”). In particular the revelations by Edward Snowden had given the subject massive public exposure. Data protection did not necessarily contradict entrepreneurial interests, as business had expressed a wish for clear rules. It was important for consumers to be better informed as to how their data was used (transparency) and that for example older people, who often found the digital world quite alien, would benefit from certain legislative “care”. It had also to be guaranteed that consumers could place a certain degree of trust in the data users, as personal data – similar to parts of the body – would be an integral part of the individual. Hence, it was essential that any form of data use had to be explicitly agreed.

Renate NIKOLAY, European Commission, (Head of Cabinet of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Věra Jourová) emphasised the necessity of amending EU Data Protection laws, which would date back to 1995. In view of plans concerning the Digital Single Market, a certain EU-wide uniformity was also crucial to reduce competitive distortions at last. In view of the recently started trilogue negotiations of the EU Commission with the Council and the European Parliament in respect of the new Data Protection Regulation, NIKOLAY was positive. It was clear that the citizens in their capacity as mature consumers had to assume a certain responsibility for their data; however, the legislator would be able to guarantee fundamental rights – such as the repeatedly named “right to be forgotten”. In contrast to the Council, the two other trilogue institutions would support an explicit consent of consumers for their data to be processed.

Daniela ZIMMER, data protection expert of AK Wien quoted a Eurobarometer survey (February 2015), according to which 92 % of Austrians would demand more priority to be given to the subject of data protection at EU level. Numerous AK studies had shown how varied the surveillance of consumers currently was. For example, the movement profile of mobile phone was used as an indicator for creditworthiness: frequent changes of location could be interpreted as more unstable living conditions. There were indications that users with more expensive computers sometimes had to reach deeper into their pockets when making online purchases, which the AK would investigate in more detail soon.

The AK expert recognized positive approaches in the EU's planned Data Protection Regulation; however, there was no opportunity for national states to define certain provisions more precisely. She identified especially three capital errors in the draft law:

1. Acceleration of “pseudonymisation” by the EU: the AK demands complete anonymisation as soon as reference to an individual is no longer necessary;
   
2. Abolishing purpose limitation: “Collectors” shall be allowed to process data beyond the originally intended purpose;
   
   
3. The planned relativisation of companies’ interest and citizens’ interest in maintaining confidentiality.

The freelance journalist Eric BONSE hosted the event.

Further information

Photos of the event