DOCSLIB.ORG

Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation Can distributed ledgers be squared with European data protection law? STUDY Panel for the Future of Science and Technology EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 634.445 – July 2019 EN Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation Can distributed ledgers be squared with European data protection law? Blockchain is a much-discussed instrument that, according to some, promises to inaugurate a new era of data storage and code-execution, which could, in turn, stimulate new business models and markets. The precise impact of the technology is, of course, hard to anticipate with certainty, in particular as many remain sceptical of blockchain's potential impact. In recent times, there has been much discussion in policy circles, academia and the private sector regarding the tension between blockchain and the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Indeed, many of the points of tension between blockchain and the GDPR are due to two overarching factors. First, the GDPR is based on an underlying assumption that in relation to each personal data point there is at least one natural or legal person – the data controller – whom data subjects can address to enforce their rights under EU data protection law. These data controllers must comply with the GDPR's obligations. Blockchains, however, are distributed databases that often seek to achieve decentralisation by replacing a unitary actor with many different players. The lack of consensus as to how (joint-) controllership ought to be defined hampers the allocation of responsibility and accountability. Second, the GDPR is based on the assumption that data can be modified or erased where necessary to comply with legal requirements, such as Articles 16 and 17 GDPR. Blockchains, however, render the unilateral modification of data purposefully onerous in order to ensure data integrity and to increase trust in the network. Furthermore, blockchains underline the challenges of adhering to the requirements of data minimisation and purpose limitation in the current form of the data economy. This study examines the European data protection framework and applies it to blockchain technologies so as to document these tensions. It also highlights the fact that blockchain may help further some of the GDPR's objectives. Concrete policy options are developed on the basis of this analysis. STOA | Panel for the Future of Science and Technology AUTHOR This study was written by Dr Michèle Finck at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE Mihalis Kritikos, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) To contact the publisher, please e-mail [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN Manuscript completed in July 2019. DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. Brussels © European Union, 2019. PE 634.445 ISBN: 978-92-846-5044-6 doi: 10.2861/535 QA-02-19-516-EN-N http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa (STOA website) http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) http://epthinktank.eu (blog) Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation Executive summary In recent years, there has been ample discussion of blockchain technologies (or distributed ledger technology – DLT1) and their potential for the European Union's digital single market. A recurring argument has been that this class of technologies may, by its very nature, be unable to comply with European data protection law, which in turn risks stifling its own development to the detriment of the European digital single market project. The present study analyses the relationship between blockchain and the GDPR, so as to highlight existing tensions and advance possible solutions. It looks into developments up until March 2019. 1. Blockchain technology In essence, a blockchain is a shared and synchronised digital database that is maintained by a consensus algorithm and stored on multiple nodes (computers that store a local version of the database). Blockchains are designed to achieve resilience through replication, meaning that there are often many parties involved in the maintenance of these databases. Each node stores an integral copy of the database and can independently update the database. In such systems, data is collected, stored and processed in a decentralised manner. Furthermore, blockchains are append-only ledgers to which data can be added but removed only in extraordinary circumstances. It is important to note that blockchains are a class of technology. Indeed, there is not one version of this technology. Rather, the term refers to many different forms of distributed database that present much variation in their technical and governance arrangements and complexity. This also implies, as will be amply stressed in the analysis below, that the compatibility between distributed ledgers and the GDPR can only be assessed on the basis of a detailed case-by-case analysis that accounts for the specific technical design and governance set-up of the relevant blockchain use case. As a result, this study finds that it cannot be concluded in a generalised fashion that blockchains are either all compatible or incompatible with European data protection law. Rather, each use of the technology must be examined on its own merits to reach such a conclusion. That said, it is easier to design private and permissioned blockchains in a manner that is compatible with EU data protection law than public and permissionless networks. This is because participants in permissioned networks are known to another, allowing for the definition, for example, of contractual relationships that enable an appropriate allocation of responsibility. Furthermore, these networks are, in contrast to public and permissionless networks, designed in a way that enables control over the network, such as to treat data in a compliant manner. Moreover, there is control over which actors have access to the relevant personal data, which is not the case with public and unpermissioned blockchains. 2. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding in May 2018. It is based on the 1995 Data Protection Directive. The GDPR's objective is essentially two-fold. On the one hand, it seeks to facilitate the free movement of personal data between the EU's various Member States. On the other hand, it establishes a framework of fundamental rights protection, based on the right to data protection in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legal framework creates a number of obligations resting on data controllers, which are the entities determining the means and purposes of data processing. It also allocates a number of rights to data subjects – the natural persons to whom personal data relates – that can be enforced via-à-vis data controllers. 1 Various definitions of blockchain and distributed ledger technology exist, and some of these stress different technical features of these respective forms of data management. Given the nature of this study and the lack of definitional consensus the terms are used synonymously. I STOA | Panel for the Future of Science and Technology 3. The tension between blockchain and the GDPR In recent years, multiple points of tension between blockchain technologies and the GDPR have been identified. These are examined in detail below. Broadly, it can be argued that these tensions are due to two overarching factors. First, the GDPR is based on the underlying assumption that in relation to each personal data point there is at least one natural or legal person – the data controller – whom data subjects can address to enforce their rights under EU data protection law. Blockchains, however, often seek to achieve decentralisation in replacing a unitary actor with many different players. This makes the allocation of responsibility and accountability burdensome, particularly in light of the uncertain contours of the notion of (joint)-controllership under the regulation. A further complicating factor in this respect is that in the light of recent case law developments, defining which entities qualify as (joint-) controllers can be fraught with a lack of legal certainty. Second, the GDPR is based on the assumption that data can be modified or erased where necessary to comply with legal requirements such as Articles 16 and 17 GDPR. Blockchains, however, render such modifications of data purposefully onerous in order to ensure data integrity and to increase trust in the network. Again, the uncertainties pertaining to this area of data protection law are increased by the existing uncertainty in EU data protection law. For instance, it is presently unclear how the notion of 'erasure' in Article 17 GDPR ought to be interpreted. It will be seen that these tensions play out in many domains. For example, there is an ongoing debate surrounding whether data typically stored on a distributed ledger, such as public keys and transactional data qualify as personal data for the purposes of the GDPR. Specifically, the question is whether personal data that has been encrypted or hashed still qualifies as personal data. Whereas it is often assumed that this is not the case, such data likely does qualify as personal data for GDPR purposes, meaning that European data protection law applies where such data is processed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building the Data Economies of the Future
    Building the Data Economies of the Future Tomorrow’s Data Economies Shaped by the Youth of Today in partnership with Answering Tomorrow’s Questions Today The World Government Summit is a global platform dedicated to shaping the future of governments worldwide. Each year, the Summit sets the agenda for the next generation of governments with a focus on how they can harness innovation and technology to solve universal challenges facing humanity. The World Government Summit is a knowledge exchange center at the intersection of government, futurism, technology, and innovation. It functions as a thought leadership platform and networking hub for policymakers, experts and pioneers in human development. The Summit is a gateway to the future as it functions as the stage for analysis of future trends, concerns, and opportunities facing humanity. It is also an arena to showcase innovations, best practice, and smart solutions to inspire creativity to tackle these future challenges. 16 World Government Summit 17 Table of Content Topics Foreword by Lord Tim Clement-Jones 02 Executive Summary 05 The Challenge of Data Economies: Why 08 Governments are Falling Behind Data economies: winners and losers 09 Too little, too slowly: the response of 09 governments to the data challenge Why Youth Must be Involved 12 Six Imperatives to Make Youth the 15 Drivers of Data Economies Disrupt the education system 15 Support and empower young people 18 to engage with governments Rehabilitate governments and public 19 servants to become digitally fit Set and monitor youth and data 20 economy national indicators Capitilise and use data 23 Create an AI market and jobs 24 Conclusion: Building Youth-centric Data 26 Economies in an Age of Disruption Table of Content Foreword by Lord Tim Clement-Jones, Former Chair, House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence Regardless of the pace of its development, Artificial an increasingly complex and dynamic digital world.
    [Show full text]
  • Google's Hyperscale Data Centres and Infrastructure Ecosystem in Europe
    GOOGLE’S HYPERSCALE DATA CENTRES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ECOSYSTEM IN EUROPE Economic impact study CLIENT: GOOGLE SEPTEMBER 2019 AUTHORS Dr Bruno Basalisco, Managing economist, Head of Digital Economy service Martin Bo Westh Hansen, Managing economist, Head of Energy & Climate service Tuomas Haanperä, Managing economist Erik Dahlberg, Senior economist Morten May Hansen, Economist Joshua Brown, Analyst Laurids Leo Münier, Analyst 0 Malthe Faber Laursen, Analyst Helge Sigurd Næss-Schmidt, Partner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Digital transformation is a defining challenge and opportunity for the European economy, provid- ing the means to reinvent and improve how firms, consumers, governments, and citizens interact and do business with each other. European consumers, firms, and society stand to benefit from the resulting innovative products, processes, services, and business models – contributing to EU productivity. To maximise these benefits, it is key that the private and public sector can rely on an advanced and efficient cloud value chain. Considerable literature exists on cloud solutions and their transformative impact across the econ- omy. This report contributes by focusing on the analysis of the cloud value chain, taking Google as a relevant case study. It assesses the economic impact of the Google European hyperscale data cen- tres and related infrastructures which, behind the scenes, underpin online services such as cloud solutions. Thus, the report is an applied analysis of these infrastructure layers “above the cloud” (upstream inputs to deliver cloud solutions) and quantifies Google’s European economic contribu- tion associated with these activities. Double-clicking the cloud Services, such as Google Cloud, are a key example of a set of solutions that can serve a variety of Eu- ropean business needs and thus support economic productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Semicircular Flow of the Data Economy and the Data Sharing Laffer Curve
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics de Pedraza, Pablo; Vollbracht, Ian Working Paper The Semicircular Flow of the Data Economy and the Data Sharing Laffer curve GLO Discussion Paper, No. 515 Provided in Cooperation with: Global Labor Organization (GLO) Suggested Citation: de Pedraza, Pablo; Vollbracht, Ian (2020) : The Semicircular Flow of the Data Economy and the Data Sharing Laffer curve, GLO Discussion Paper, No. 515, Global Labor Organization (GLO), Essen This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/215779 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Trade Rules
    BRUSSELS OFFICE DEBORAH JAMES DIGITAL TRADE RULES: A DISASTROUS NEW CONSTITUTION FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, BY AND FOR BIG TECH DIGITAL DEBORAH JAMES TRADE RULES A DISASTROUS NEW CONSTITUTION FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, BY AND FOR BIG TECH ROSA-LUXEMBURG-STIFTUNG, BRUSSELS 2020 EN PREFACE The largest corporations in the history of the world – Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft – are seeking to use ‘trade’ rules to rig the rules of the global (digital) economy to enable them to collect more data, exercise more control over our lives and their workers, and amass ever more profit. More than 80 members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are currently negotiating a new agreement on digital trade based on these proposals. This paper seeks to explain how these corporations operate in order to achieve their goals; what the potential impacts of the rules would be on workers, citizens, communities, developing countries, public services, safety and security, and democracy itself; what the alternatives are; and what we can do to stop this mass corporate takeover. This paper was written towards the end of 2019. Today, in 2020, the world seems a different place, as we collectively experience the coronavirus crisis and new aware- ness about issues of racism and policy brutality. The crises have brought about new, and highlighted existing, urgent problems – often exacerbated by Big Tech’s iron grip on our economic and social lives. EMERGING CHALLENGES IN 2020 The WTO itself is in serious crisis. The 12th WTO Ministerial Conference was due to be held in June 2020, but has been postponed – possibly for another year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Book of Swarm Storage and Communication Infrastructure for Self-Sovereign Digital Society Back-End Stack for the Decentralised Web
    the book of Swarm storage and communication infrastructure for self-sovereign digital society back-end stack for the decentralised web Viktor Trón v1.0 pre-release 7 - worked on November 17, 2020 the swarm is headed toward us Satoshi Nakamoto ii CONTENTS Prolegomena xi Acknowledgments xii i prelude 1 the evolution2 1.1 Historical context 2 1.1.1 Web 1.02 1.1.2 Web 2.03 1.1.3 Peer-to-peer networks 6 1.1.4 The economics of BitTorrent and its limits 7 1.1.5 Towards Web 3.08 1.2 Fair data economy 12 1.2.1 The current state of the data economy 12 1.2.2 The current state and issues of data sovereignty 13 1.2.3 Towards self-sovereign data 15 1.2.4 Artificial intelligence and self-sovereign data 16 1.2.5 Collective information 17 1.3 The vision 18 1.3.1 Values 18 1.3.2 Design principles 19 1.3.3 Objectives 19 1.3.4 Impact areas 20 1.3.5 The future 21 ii design and architecture 2 network 25 2.1 Topology and routing 25 2.1.1 Requirements for underlay network 25 2.1.2 Overlay addressing 26 2.1.3 Kademlia routing 27 2.1.4 Bootstrapping and maintaining Kademlia topology 32 2.2 Swarm storage 35 2.2.1 Distributed immutable store for chunks 35 2.2.2 Content addressed chunks 38 2.2.3 Single-owner chunks 41 2.2.4 Chunk encryption 42 2.2.5 Redundancy by replication 43 2.3 Push and pull: chunk retrieval and syncing 47 iii 2.3.1 Retrieval 47 2.3.2 Push syncing 51 2.3.3 Pull syncing 53 2.3.4 Light nodes 55 3 incentives 57 3.1 Sharing bandwidth 58 3.1.1 Incentives for serving and relaying 58 3.1.2 Pricing protocol for chunk retrieval 59 3.1.3 Incentivising push-syncing
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Social Impacts of Google Cloud September 2018 Economic and Social Impacts of Google Cloud |
    Economic and social impacts of Google Cloud September 2018 Economic and social impacts of Google Cloud | Contents Executive Summary 03 Introduction 10 Productivity impacts 15 Social and other impacts 29 Barriers to Cloud adoption and use 38 Policy actions to support Cloud adoption 42 Appendix 1. Country Sections 48 Appendix 2. Methodology 105 This final report (the “Final Report”) has been prepared by Deloitte Financial Advisory, S.L.U. (“Deloitte”) for Google in accordance with the contract with them dated 23rd February 2018 (“the Contract”) and on the basis of the scope and limitations set out below. The Final Report has been prepared solely for the purposes of assessment of the economic and social impacts of Google Cloud as set out in the Contract. It should not be used for any other purposes or in any other context, and Deloitte accepts no responsibility for its use in either regard. The Final Report is provided exclusively for Google’s use under the terms of the Contract. No party other than Google is entitled to rely on the Final Report for any purpose whatsoever and Deloitte accepts no responsibility or liability or duty of care to any party other than Google in respect of the Final Report and any of its contents. As set out in the Contract, the scope of our work has been limited by the time, information and explanations made available to us. The information contained in the Final Report has been obtained from Google and third party sources that are clearly referenced in the appropriate sections of the Final Report.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    International The Data Economy: On Evaluation and Taxation Piergiorgio Valente[*] Issue: European Taxation, 2019 (Volume 59), No. 5 Published online: 15 April 2019 While data-centred business models are claiming an ever-growing share of worldwide revenue, regulatory efforts to identify proper tax rules for the relevant activities are intensifying. It is questionable whether or not the proposals currently on the table capture the distinctive features of the data economy. The formulation of appropriate tax rules requires a thorough understanding of the mechanics of data processing activities and due consideration of the difference between information, which is an intangible asset, and tangible assets. 1. Introduction It is widely acknowledged in the areas of business, legislation and policymaking, as well as administration and human rights protection, that the dominion of data is increasing.[1]This is clearly illustrated by the series of legislative initiatives launched and/or adopted in order to provide a legal framework applicable to the unstoppable flow of data.[2] Data collection and analysis are not, however, new processes. In particular, data processing is deemed to encompass:[3] any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction. It is clear from this definition that data processing is an age-old procedure that underlies all economies. In fact, business and trade are borne from the observation of people’s needs and preferences, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Personal Data Economy
    Me, my data and I: The future of the personal data economy September 2017 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no.732546 Contract no. 732546 © European Union, 2017. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, the EU. Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology. The Reproduction is authorised provided the source information and views set out in this is acknowledged. publication are those of the author(s) and do This work is licensed under a Creative Commons not necessarily reflect the official opinion of AttributionNonCommercial -ShareAlike 4.0 the Commission. The Commission does not International License guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Authors Project partners Tom Symons and Theo Bass (Nesta) BCMI Labs AB, City of Amsterdam, CNRS, Dyne.org, Eurecat, Technology and Digital Reviewers/contributors innovation Office, Barcelona City Hall (IMI), Pau Balcells Alegre, Francesca Bria and Oleguer Nesta, Open University of Catalonia, Politecnico Sagarra (Technology and Digital innovation di Torino/Nexa, Stichting Katholieke Universiteit Office, Barcelona City Hall - IMI); andGijs Nijmegen Privacy & Identity Lab, Thingful, Boerwinkel, Tom Demeyer, Job Spierings Thoughtworks Ltd., UCL, Waag Society. (Waag Society) Acknowledgements This report was made possible thanks to the support of a number of people. We are particularly grateful to the participants of our workshop in May, which form the basis for the future scenarios that are outlined in Section 2 of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy and Regulatory Issues with Digital Businesses
    Policy Research Working Paper 8948 Public Disclosure Authorized Policy and Regulatory Issues with Digital Businesses Rong Chen Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Development Economics Global Indicators Group July 2019 Policy Research Working Paper 8948 Abstract Advances in digital technology are expanding the boundaries laws need to be revisited to address the winner-take-all ten- of firms. Digital platform firms, which leverage a “platform” dency of digital platform businesses. Tax systems should to create value through facilitating exchanges between two also be updated to close the loopholes available to digital or more interdependent groups, are the new disrupters platform businesses so that they pay their fair share to soci- in the market. They exhibit distinct features such as scale ety. This paper also provides the first analysis of the World without mass, positive network effects, accumulation of tre- Bank’s Digital Business Indicators initiative, which collects mendous data, and a convoluted value creation process with information on the existence and quality of regulations in user participation. Meanwhile, they bring more opportuni- broadband connectivity, digital payment, data privacy and ties to traditional businesses by closely connecting suppliers security, as well as logistics, in 21 pilot countries. It aims and customers and reducing transaction frictions. Such a to explore the possibilities for developing the regulatory changing business landscape calls for adaptive policies and and policy indicators that governments can work with to regulations. This policy paper lays out the key policy and promote the digital economy. regulatory issues around digital businesses. Competition This paper is a product of the Global Indicators Group, Development Economics.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Data Economy: an Enabling Framework
    Towards a Data Economy: An enabling framework WHITE PAPER AUGUST 2021 Cover: Gettyimages/monsitj Inside: Gettyimages/shulz; Gettyimages/Amiak; Gettyimages/koto_feja; Gettyimages/blackred; Gettyimages/Urupong; Gettyimages/Cemile Bingol; Gettyimages/DKosig Contents 3 A Note from the Data for Common Purpose Initiative 4 Foreword 5 Preface 6 Executive summary 8 1 The Data Economy: An imperative 9 1.1 Data economy 11 1.2 Barriers to realizing a data economy 11 1.3 Data exchanges to enable a data economy 13 1.4 Industry shifts powered by a data economy 14 2 Functional Architecture of a Data Exchange 15 2.1 Principles for data exchange 15 2.2 Capabilities and functionalities of DEx ecosystem layers 16 2.3 Reference model of a DEx 17 2.4 Distinctive characteristics of a DEx 19 3 Governance of a Data Exchange 20 3.1 Data governance 22 3.2 DEx stakeholders 23 3.3 3P approach to a governance framework for a data-exchange ecosystem 25 4 Incentivizing Data Sharing 26 4.1 Determining the value of data 27 4.2 Incentivizing the sharing of data 30 5 Enablers for a Data-Exchange Ecosystem 31 5.1 Availability of data 31 5.2 Usability of data 33 5.3 Building trust 34 5.4 Multistakeholder approach 35 6 Looking Ahead 37 Contributors 39 Endnotes © 2021 World Economic Forum. All rights This white paper is published by the World Economic Forum as a contribution reserved. No part of this publication may to a project, insight area or interaction. The findings, interpretations and be reproduced or transmitted in any form conclusions expressed herein are a result of a collaborative process or by any means, including photocopying facilitated and endorsed by the World Economic Forum but whose results do and recording, or by any information not necessarily represent the views of the World Economic Forum, nor the storage and retrieval system.
    [Show full text]
  • BEREC Report on the Data Economy
    BoR (19) 106 BEREC Report on the Data Economy 13 June 2019 BoR (19) 106 Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MAIN FINDINGS ........................................................................... 3 2. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 4 3. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE DATA ECONOMY .............................................................. 7 3.1. Description of the data economy .................................................................................................. 7 3.2. Economic characteristics of data ................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Online competition and the data economy ................................................................................... 10 4. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND COMPETENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE DATA ECONOMY 14 4.1. Regulatory framework for the data economy .............................................................................. 14 4.2. Authorities involved in the data economy .................................................................................... 20 4.3. BEREC and NRAs role ................................................................................................................ 20 5. ECSs AS ENABLERS OF THE DATA ECONOMY ...................................................................... 21 5.1. ECS providers establishing the infrastructure for the data economy .......................................... 21 5.2. ECS
    [Show full text]
  • Data Sovereignty and Data Economy—Two Repulsive Forces?
    DATA SOVEREIGNTY AND DATA ECONOMY TWO REPULSIVE FORCES? Data Sovereignty and Data Economy —Two Repulsive Forces? Position Paper Marija Radic Philipp Herrmann Max Schulze André T. Nemat Sarah J. Becker Marcel Rebbert Constantin Abate Ralf Konrad Data-Driven Value Creation Platform for Interactive, Assisting Service Systems Jan Bartsch Tobias Dehling Ali Sunyaev The objective of this paper is to illuminate the interplay of datasov- ereignty and data economy. To understand this interaction, it is important to consider a holistic approach consisting of data sovereignty, data economy, data rights, and data ethics. In this context, we identify and elaborate ten potential areas of tension. Authors Florian Lauf Simon Scheider Sven Meister Marija Radic Philipp Herrmann Max Schulze André T. Nemat Sarah J. Becker Marcel Rebbert Constantin Abate Ralf Konrad Jan Bartsch Tobias Dehling Ali Sunyaev Publisher Image sources Fraunhofer Institute for Software and Systems Engineering ISST p.4: ©3dkombinat - Fotolia Emil-Figge-Str. 91 p.6: ©ryzhi - stock.adobe.com 44227 Dortmund p.8: ©sdecoret - Depositphotos Germany p.14: ©luckybusiness - stock.adobe.com DOI: 10.24406/isst-n-634865 p.26: ©everythingposs - Depositphotos Email: [email protected] p.29: ©stori - Depositphotos Links Layout www.dawid-projekt.de Lena Sodenkamp, Fraunhofer ISST www.interaktive-technologien.de/projekte/dawid May 2021 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]