Table of Authorities |
|
xvii | |
List of Abbreviations |
|
xxiii | |
Introduction: The risk-based approach as the opposite of the rights-based approach, or as an opportunity to analyse the links between law, regulation, and risk? |
|
1 | (25) |
|
1 The risk-based approach: a contradiction in terms? |
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
2 On the links between law and regulation |
|
|
5 | (2) |
|
3 On data protection as regulation |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
4 The links between risk and regulation: the role of the proportionality principle |
|
|
9 | (6) |
|
4.1 The proportionality principle as the missing link between law/regulation and risk |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
4.2 Defining the proportionality principle: two balancing tests associated with risk mitigation measures/safeguards |
|
|
10 | (5) |
|
4.2.1 Risk mitigation or safeguards? |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
4.2.2 Proportionality as two balancing tests |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
4.2.3 Test 1: pressing social need |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
4.2.4 Test 2: proportionality stricto sensu |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
5 Proportionality as the common root of law/regulation and risk: some first lessons |
|
|
15 | (3) |
|
5.1 Proportionality at the core of regulation and risk: closely intertwined practices |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
5.2 Proportionality as the hallmark of regulatory law: what consequences for data protection? |
|
|
16 | (2) |
|
|
18 | (6) |
|
7 Structure of the argument |
|
|
24 | (2) |
1 Fundamental notions: Risk and regulation |
|
26 | (28) |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
|
27 | (14) |
|
2.1 Etymology and meaning of the concept |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
2.2 Risk and risk management |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
2.3 The technique of risk and risk management |
|
|
29 | (2) |
|
2.4 Risk (management) as a matter of two balancing tests associated to risk mitigation measures |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
2.5 Different methods for assessing risks |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
2.6 Different ways to manage risks |
|
|
33 | (4) |
|
2.6.1 Risk management as an exercise in standard setting |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
2.6.2 How to balance the costs and benefits |
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
2.6.3 The choice of the best risk mitigation measures |
|
|
34 | (3) |
|
2.7 Challenges to risk management: beyond objectivity |
|
|
37 | (3) |
|
2.7.1 Rise of risk analysis |
|
|
37 | (3) |
|
2.8 Beyond risk analysis: sketching contemporary practices of risk management |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
|
41 | (11) |
|
|
41 | (1) |
|
|
42 | (4) |
|
3.2.1 Regulation, more than an economic concept |
|
|
42 | (2) |
|
3.2.2 The characteristics of regulatory law |
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
3.3 The object of regulation: harms |
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
3.4 Studying the constitutive elements of regulation more in depth |
|
|
48 | (7) |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
3.4.2 Monitoring and behaviour control |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
3.4.3 Redefining the opposition between monitoring and behaviour control types of safeguards |
|
|
49 | (2) |
|
3.4.4 The difference between enforcement and safeguards |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
4 Risk and regulation as variations on the proportionality principle: a grid's eye view |
|
|
52 | (2) |
2 Data protection as command and control regulation |
|
54 | (33) |
|
1 Introduction: data protection as command and control regulation |
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
2 Data protection and standard setting |
|
|
55 | (15) |
|
2.1 Data quality and legitimacy principles embody standard setting in data protection, and more in particular performance standards |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
2.2 Article 7: data legitimacy as the first balancing test |
|
|
57 | (7) |
|
2.2.1 Data legitimacy is both about the legitimacy of the processing operation and its necessity |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
2.2.2 Data legitimacy in practice (1): presumptions |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Data legitimacy in practice (2): Heinz Huber |
|
|
59 | (2) |
|
2.2.4 Comparison with other views that do not support the existence of the first balancing test within data protection legislations |
|
|
61 | (3) |
|
2.3 Article 6: data quality |
|
|
64 | (5) |
|
2.3.1 Article 6(1)(c) as the embodiment of the second balancing test |
|
|
64 | (2) |
|
2.3.2 Safeguard 1 = Transparency: principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency + principle of purpose limitation |
|
|
66 | (1) |
|
2.3.3 Safeguard 2 = Lawfulness, fairness, and legitimacy: principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency + principle of purpose limitation |
|
|
66 | (1) |
|
2.3.4 Safeguard 3 = reduction in scope: purpose limitation, data minimisation, storage limitation principles |
|
|
67 | (1) |
|
2.3.5 Safeguard 4 = accuracy of the data: data accuracy principle |
|
|
68 | (1) |
|
2.3.6 Safeguard 5 = security: principle of integrity and confidentiality |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
2.4 Data protection, standard setting, and proportionality: conclusions |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
|
70 | (8) |
|
3.1 Formal safeguards (1): deferred control |
|
|
70 | (4) |
|
3.1.1 Advance determination and corrective intervention |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
3.1.2 Advance determination in data protection: licence, notification/registration, and prior checking |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
3.1.3 Advance determination as a good example as to why the distinction between monitoring and behaviour modification is of little relevance |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
3.1.4 Corrective intervention: the data protection authorities' powers |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
3.2 Formal safeguards (2): regulation through organisation |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
3.3 Formal safeguards (3): beyond the Data Protection Directive |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
3.3.1 Facilities v requirements |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
3.3.2 Regulation by classification |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
3.4 Formal safeguards (4): beyond Freund's classification: data subject rights |
|
|
75 | (4) |
|
3.4.1 Data subject rights as safeguards: formal safeguards of deferred control |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
3.4.2 Data subject's right to be informed (Arts 10 and 11): advance determination |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
3.4.3 Rights of access and to object: corrective intervention |
|
|
76 | (2) |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
5 Safeguards and data legitimacy |
|
|
79 | (5) |
|
5.1 Presumption: the main safeguard |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
80 | (3) |
|
5.2.1 Consent as a safeguard in data protection |
|
|
80 | (2) |
|
5.2.2 Consent as a safeguard in other fields |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
5.2.3 Consent as advance determination: prior approval, and transparency |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
5.3 The legitimate interests of the data controller |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
7 Conclusions: data protection as command and control regulation and the proportionality principle |
|
|
84 | (3) |
3 Issues with data protection as command and control regulation |
|
87 | (22) |
|
1 Introduction: data protection and issues with command and control regulation |
|
|
87 | (2) |
|
2 Issues resulting from the "diagnosis-prescription" aspect of command and control regulation |
|
|
89 | (3) |
|
3 Issues revolving around enforcement |
|
|
92 | (2) |
|
4 List of challenges related to evolutions in data processing practices |
|
|
94 | (2) |
|
5 Command and control issues at the data protection level |
|
|
96 | (13) |
|
5.1 Inefficiency of the data protection core principles/congruence |
|
|
96 | (2) |
|
5.2 Uncertainty/lack of clarity, predictability, transparency |
|
|
98 | (3) |
|
5.3 Simplicity and accessibility |
|
|
101 | (5) |
|
|
106 | (4) |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
5.4.2 Issues with advances in technology |
|
|
107 | (2) |
4 Changes of regulatory models: from command and control to meta regulation |
|
109 | (27) |
|
|
109 | (1) |
|
2 The plinth of meta regulation: the "risk management agenda" |
|
|
110 | (4) |
|
2.1 The rise of corporate governance |
|
|
110 | (1) |
|
2.2 The role of corporate governance in the transformation of risk and risk management: emphasis on process |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
2.3 Governance and the neoliberal logic of risk: responsibilisation and risk taking |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
2.4 Governance and the transformation of organisational activity as risk taking: from risk governance to the risk management agenda (or risk management 2.0): the turning inside out of organisations |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
3 The risk management agenda in practice |
|
|
114 | (5) |
|
3.1 Role of internal controls |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
3.1.1 Original meaning of internal controls |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
3.1.2 The transformation of internal controls as risk management: the role of audit and quality control |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
3.2 The risk management agenda's methodologies |
|
|
116 | (1) |
|
3.3 The values of the risk management agenda: responsibility as a "social licence" to operate |
|
|
117 | (2) |
|
4 The ISO 31000 Standard as an embodiment of the risk management agenda |
|
|
119 | (4) |
|
4.1 Risk management principles |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
4.2 Risk management framework |
|
|
120 | (3) |
|
4.3 Risk management process |
|
|
123 | (1) |
|
5 Addressing the command and control issues |
|
|
123 | (2) |
|
5.1 Command and control shortcomings: lack of expertise and resources |
|
|
123 | (1) |
|
5.2 Command and control as responsive regulation: deterrence and compliance |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
|
125 | (5) |
|
6.1 Defining smart regulation |
|
|
125 | (2) |
|
6.2 Smart regulation and data protection |
|
|
127 | (3) |
|
7 From smart regulation to meta regulation |
|
|
130 | (2) |
|
7.1 Defining meta regulation |
|
|
130 | (2) |
|
8 The role of internal controls and the risk management agenda in collaborative models of regulation |
|
|
132 | (3) |
|
8.1 Risk management at the heart of collaborative models of regulation |
|
|
132 | (1) |
|
8.2 Summarising the collaborative shifts taking place |
|
|
133 | (2) |
|
9 Conclusion: meta regulation and data protection, towards the risk-based approach |
|
|
135 | (1) |
5 Meta regulation in data protection law: the risk-based approach |
|
136 | (49) |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
2 The risk-based approach to data protection: meta regulation with a regulatory focus |
|
|
137 | (34) |
|
|
137 | (1) |
|
2.2 The regulatory oriented approach's goal: making the regulatory architecture more efficient |
|
|
138 | (1) |
|
2.3 Responsibilisation of the data controller through accountability |
|
|
139 | (6) |
|
2.3.1 Risk-based approach, responsibility or accountability? |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 History of the accountability principle: the-data protection-principle of accountability: origins |
|
|
140 | (1) |
|
2.3.3 The modern accountability principle: responsibility following the risk management agenda |
|
|
141 | (4) |
|
2.4 Internal and external responsibility: the value dimension of responsibilisation |
|
|
145 | (4) |
|
2.4.1 The alignment of regulatory goals |
|
|
145 | (3) |
|
2.4.2 The dual dimension of the risk management agenda's values: democratic ethos and business efficiency, and their recoding as a matter of business goals |
|
|
148 | (1) |
|
2.5 The risk-based approach as accountability and, possibly, data protection by design |
|
|
149 | (1) |
|
2.6 Accountability, or the risk-based approach? And beyond |
|
|
150 | (2) |
|
2.7 Risk-based accountability and the risk-based transformation of the data controller |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
2.8 The risk-based approach as a contradictory implementation of meta regulation? |
|
|
153 | (2) |
|
2.9 The scope of the risk-based approach: a focus on safeguards |
|
|
155 | (2) |
|
2.10 Summarising the risk-based approach in the GDPR and its rationale |
|
|
157 | (3) |
|
2.11 The "regulatory focus" of the risk-based approach in the GDPR, and beyond |
|
|
160 | (4) |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
2.11.2 Council of Europe, Convention 108+ |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
2.11.3 Canada: PIPEDA and the Privacy Management Program |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
2.11.4 A similar regulatory oriented approach in Canada: Cavoukian's Privacy by Design |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
2.11.5 The Revised OECD Guidelines |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
2.11.6 The APEC Privacy Framework: a more risk-prone risk-based approach? |
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
2.12 Beyond the responsibilisation of the regulatees: internal controls, regulatory resources, and enforcement |
|
|
164 | (7) |
|
2.12.1 Internal controls: regulatory resource only-or most exclusively-at the internal level |
|
|
164 | (1) |
|
2.12.2 The GDPR: a much more collaborative iteration of the risk-based approach |
|
|
165 | (3) |
|
2.12.3 The risk-based approach: a piecemeal implementation of the risk management agenda? |
|
|
168 | (2) |
|
2.12.4 Enforcement: enforced self-regulation and the ladder of enforcement |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
2.13 Concluding thoughts on the risk-based approach |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
3 The standard setting oriented risk-based approach |
|
|
171 | (14) |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
3.2 The standard setting oriented risk-based approach as a response to regulatory failures |
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
3.2.1 Implementation shortcomings |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
3.2.2 Conflicting logic(s): purpose requirement vs purposeless processing, or the conflict between collection based and use based risk assessment |
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
3.3 The Microsoft approach |
|
|
174 | (6) |
|
3.3.1 A use-based risk-based approach |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
3.3.2 A neoliberal take on risk analysis |
|
|
175 | (1) |
|
3.3.3 From a neoliberal take on risk analysis to a deregulatory approach? |
|
|
176 | (3) |
|
3.3.4 Concluding remarks on the Microsoft risk-based approach |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
3.4 A new pragmatism: less risky risk and more optimistic approaches |
|
|
180 | (8) |
|
3.4.1 Presenting new pragmatisms |
|
|
180 | (3) |
|
3.4.2 New pragmatisms and the ideal of natural compliance at the heart of meta regulation |
|
|
183 | (2) |
6 Risk and the risk-based approach: Between data protection risks and compliance risks |
|
185 | (27) |
|
1 Introduction: various notions of risk at play |
|
|
185 | (2) |
|
2 The ISO's constitutive elements of risk |
|
|
187 | (1) |
|
3 Defining a data protection risk |
|
|
188 | (10) |
|
3.1 The computer: the risk source |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
3.2 Risk factors, risks, and harms |
|
|
189 | (1) |
|
3.3 Risk factor (1): extent of the processing: increased data quantity |
|
|
189 | (1) |
|
3.3.1 Risk from risk factor (1): inaccuracy |
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
3.3.2 Harms stemming from inaccuracy |
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
3.4 Risk factor (2): properties of the processing: opaque and increased access to, and use of data |
|
|
190 | (3) |
|
3.4.1 Risk (1) from risk factor (2): "dragnet effect" |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
3.4.2 Harms stemming from the "dragnet effect" |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
3.4.3 Risk (2) from risk factor (2): loss of control over personal data |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
3.4.4 Harms stemming from loss of control over personal data |
|
|
191 | (2) |
|
3.5 Risk factor (3): type of processing: new bureaucratic and managerial practices |
|
|
193 | (2) |
|
3.5.1 Risk from risk factor (3): social control |
|
|
193 | (1) |
|
3.5.2 Harms stemming from social control |
|
|
194 | (1) |
|
3.6 Concluding thoughts on the concept of a data protection risk |
|
|
195 | (1) |
|
3.7 The NIST Privacy Engineering and Risk Management in Federal Systems Framework as a risk analysis methodology embodying the notion of data protection risk |
|
|
196 | (2) |
|
3.7.1 The notion of data protection risk in the NIST methodology: three feared events |
|
|
197 | (1) |
|
4 The notion of risk in the GDPR: compliance risk |
|
|
198 | (10) |
|
4.1 Better understanding compliance risk |
|
|
198 | (2) |
|
4.2 Traces of the GDPR risk as compliance risk |
|
|
200 | (2) |
|
4.3 The risk-based approach as "data protection on the ground": doing a risk analysis with the CNIL methodology |
|
|
202 | (4) |
|
4.4 Other compliance risk management methodologies |
|
|
206 | (2) |
|
5 Conclusion: The difference between compliance and "proper" data protection risk, and the logic of meta regulation |
|
|
208 | (4) |
7 The risk-based approach in practice: Caveats |
|
212 | (27) |
|
|
212 | (1) |
|
|
213 | (10) |
|
2.1 Risk criteria step: taking risks |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
2.2 Different possibilities to assess risks |
|
|
214 | (6) |
|
2.2.1 The difference between toxicology and epidemiology |
|
|
214 | (4) |
|
2.2.2 Additional caveats surrounding the assessment of risks |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Examples from DPIA methodologies concerning the different possibilities of assessment |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
2.3 Risk management sensu stricto (ss) |
|
|
220 | (2) |
|
2.4 Risk management and data legitimacy |
|
|
222 | (1) |
|
|
223 | (7) |
|
3.1 Discretion and consistency: two contradictory requirements |
|
|
223 | (4) |
|
3.2 Institutional or secondary risks: competing risks |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
3.3 The risk-based approach and risk-based regulation, or the risk transformation of the regulators themselves |
|
|
228 | (2) |
|
4 Risk management on the ground |
|
|
230 | (6) |
|
4.1 Adequate collection and use of data |
|
|
230 | (1) |
|
4.2 Misplaced pretences at objectivity |
|
|
231 | (2) |
|
4.3 Complexity and lack of adequate expertise |
|
|
233 | (1) |
|
4.4 The risk-based approach and resource efficiency: a zero-sum game? |
|
|
234 | (1) |
|
4.5 Evaluation of efficiency |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
4.6 A new organisational mindset |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
5 Conclusions: meta regulation and utopia |
|
|
236 | (3) |
Conclusions: Back to the rights/risk-based approaches, and the future of data protection |
|
239 | (14) |
|
1 Summary of the findings: approaching the debate on rights/risk-based approaches from a different perspective |
|
|
239 | (9) |
|
2 The risk-based approach and the future of data protection |
|
|
248 | (5) |
Bibliography |
|
253 | (18) |
Index |
|
271 | |