With great respect Greg, there is a field called privacy scholarship, and in that field folks absolutely do pay a great deal of attention to the rulings of the EU Court of Justice, and the opinions of the Article 29 working group. You are free to make the argument that thought leadership rests in the United States or anywhere else (Cate, Westin, etc) but there are a great many US privacy scholars who look to the EU for thought leadership (Reidenberg, Schwartz, Solove, Rotenberg, Nissenbaum, Gellman, I could go on but that might be tedious). So I think it is not really fair to rule out recent contributions if they are important, and the material Ayden is introducing certainly qualifies as important in my book. The fact is that there has been a struggle going on for the last 25 years between the US and Europe over the regulatory vs non-regulatory approach to privacy. Lets explicitly put that on the table and recognize our differences on this matter. Kind regards stephanie On 2016-03-28 13:43, Greg Shatan via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy wrote:
Ayden,
EU rulings do not necessarily impact the law in the rest of the world, much less California. I would not categorize an attempt to embrace EU principles as a "race to the top" nor would I categorize those principles as "international best practices." Certainly, we as a group should not adopt such attitudes. But, hey, it's nice to know where you stand.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg
*Gregory S. Shatan | Partner *McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 <tel:212-609-6873> F: 212-416-7613 <tel:212-416-7613> gshatan @mccarter.com <mailto:gshatan%20@mccarter.com> | www.mccarter.com <http://www.mccarter.com/>
BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline <gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
I would like to introduce some material relating to the 'right to be forgotten' in Europe. Here's a court judgement <https://links2.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/Y6pG8Inj7cxRfeEQg?r...> <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIn...>.
The protection of personal data in Europe is seen as a fundamental right on equal standing with all other human rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that any and all data processing must be subject to stringent proportionality assessments.
It has been unsuccessfully argued that allowing users to delete their data is an affront to other fundamental rights such as free speech. The Court of Justice of the EU has consistently ruled that if and when the privacy interests of the data subject outweigh the public interest, the individual should be able to enforce his or her 'right to be forgotten'.
This decision is something we should carefully consider when looking at how long we retain information for. Certainly once a domain name has expired, it would be difficult to justify under these rulings the continued storage of the sensitive personal information of registrants.
I appreciate that EU rulings do not necessarily impact Californian law, but hey, why not have a race to the top and adopt international best practices in privacy law… :-)
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:37 AM, David Cake via Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy <gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org>> wrote:
Welcome all of you to the Privacy sub-team. Thanks to all of you for volunteering.
Our task is first to collect information on privacy issues relevant to registration data. Then we will go on to decide how best to present that information for use of the working group - we may consolidate, summarise, prioritise etc in order to make the important information easily available. Hopefully the privacy experts on this group will help us locate the most important material, and make it easily digestible to the broader working group.
This is a link to the RDS PDP WG document that describes the approach the WG agreed upon https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730879/RDS-PDP-Proposed-S... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...>
At this early stage, we are in collection mode - please send documents that you think will be valuable to the group. If you add a bit more information for context as to why you think it would be useful, that will probably be very helpful for later work.
Looking forward to working with you all.
David
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy
Ayden Férdeline +44.77.8018.7421 <tel:%2B44.77.8018.7421>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-privacy@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-privacy
