This work was supported by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020), as part of the projects LOCARD (https://locard.eu) (Grant Agreement no. 832735) and CyberSec4Europe (https://www.cybersec4europe.eu) (Grant Agreement no. 830929). F. Casino was supported by the Beatriu de Pinós programme of the Government of Catalonia (Grant No. 2020 BP 00035). The content of this article does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors.
One of the novelties of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be the application of the risk-based approach in European data protection law on a larger scale. Although the Regulation uses the term 'risk' in numerous provisions, it does not answer the question 'What is risk to a right and how should it be assessed?'. Although Article 35 (Data Protection Impact Assessment, DPIA) provides a tool to assess these risks, to keep the GDPR suitable for assessing new technologies, the conduct of a DPIA should be based on solid and clear understanding of the provisions. The applicability and suitability of a risk assessment process is yet to be discovered if the risk relates to a fundamental right. A unified perception of risk to a right is necessary as it is the core element of the risk-based approach, furthermore, a varying perception of risk to a right would undermine the endeavours of the GDPR relating to harmonisation. This contribution elaborates on the attributes of risk to a right and advises a unified understanding of risk to a right and risk to the right to the protection of personal data.
This paper provides recommendations for the European Union (EU) to complement the requirement for data protection impact assessment (DPIA), as set forth in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with a view of achieving a more robust protection of personal data. In April 2016 the EU concluded the core part of the reform of its legal framework for personal data protection. The Union is currently preparing implementing measures and guidelines to give full effect to the new legal provisions before their applicability from May 2018. This reform introduces, among other ‘novelties’, a legal requirement to conduct a DPIA. However, this requirement bears a few weak points. In order to inform this on-going policy-making process, the present policy brief attempts to draft a best practice for a generic type of impact assessment, i.e. recommended for different areas (section II). Section III makes an early evaluation of how this best practice relates to the specific impact assessment requirement set forth in the GDPR, i.e. DPIA. These sections are preceded by succinct background information on impact assessments as such: definition, historical overview, and their merits and drawbacks (section I). Section IV concludes this paper by offering recommendations for complementing the DPIA requirement in the GDPR: (1) to expand the scope of the DPIA requirement in the GDPR; (2) to develop methods for conducting such an assessment; (3) to establish ‘reference centres’ on DPIA at data protection authorities (DPAs). This policy brief is addressed predominantly to policy-makers at the EU- and Member State-level, notwithstanding the potential interest it might gain from their counterparts elsewhere in the world.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.