Background: Modern privacy regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), address privacy in software systems in a technologically agnostic way by mentioning general "technical measures" for data privacy compliance rather than dictating how these should be implemented. An understanding of the concept of technical measures and how exactly these can be handled in practice, however, is not trivial due to its interdisciplinary nature and the necessary technical-legal interactions.Aims: We aim to investigate how the concept of technical measures for data privacy compliance is understood in practice as well as the technical-legal interaction intrinsic to the process of implementing those technical measures.Methods: We follow a research design that is 1) exploratory in nature, 2) qualitative, and 3) interview-based, with 16 selected privacy professionals in the technical and legal domains.Results: Our results suggest that there is no clear mutual understanding and commonly accepted approach to handling technical measures. Both technical and legal roles are involved in the implementation of such measures. While they still often operate in separate spheres, a predominant opinion amongst the interviewees is to promote more interdisciplinary collaboration.Conclusions: Our empirical findings confirm the need for better interaction between legal and engineering teams when implementing technical measures for data privacy. We posit that interdisciplinary collaboration is paramount to a more complete understanding of technical measures, which currently lacks a mutually accepted notion. Yet, as strongly suggested by our results, there is still a lack of systematic approaches to such interaction. Therefore, the results strengthen our confidence in the need for further investigations into the technical-legal dynamic of data privacy compliance.

Background: Nowadays, regulatory requirements engineering (regulatory RE) faces challenges of interdisciplinary nature that cannot be tackled due to existing research gaps. Aims: We envision an approach to solve some of the challenges related to the nature and complexity of regulatory requirements, the necessity for domain knowledge, and the involvement of legal experts in regulatory RE. Method: We suggest the qualitative analysis of regulatory texts combined with the further case study to develop an empirical foundation for our research. Results: We outline our vision for the application of extended artefact-based modeling for regulatory RE. Conclusions: Empirical methodology is an essential instrument to address interdisciplinarity and complexity in regulatory RE. Artefact-based modeling supported by empirical results can solve a particular set of problems while not limiting the application of other methods and tools and facilitating the interaction between different fields of practice and research. CCS Concepts• Software and its engineering → Requirements analysis; • Applied computing → Law.

No abstract

No abstract