5 ms·

I wonder which part of the GDPR they are using to demand sources. I have read the thing a couple of months ago and as I recall the thing is mostly about not sha

by Thiez 8y ago

I wonder which part of the GDPR they are using to demand sources. I have read the thing a couple of months ago and as I recall the thing is mostly about not sharing personal information without consent, does anyone else recall parts that grant governments new rights to demand the disclosure of personal information?

treewhistle 8y ago
You can read an English translation of the demand letter here: https://www.occrp.org/en/16-other/other-articles/8876-english-translation-of-the-letter-from-the-romanian-data-protection-authority-to-rise-project https://www.occrp.org/en/16-other/other-articles/8876-englis...
- e12e 8y ago
  Thanks for that. Some of those points are actually reasonable, and a journalist should be comfortably within rights to respond that sources need to be kept secret, and comment why/how/why not subjects were alerted to the publication (perhaps given a chance to comment). Hopefully this'll go to court and set a precedent that more in line with the spirit of the gdpr.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    I am not quite certain how much a precedent matters here. Of the western world we have the US, UK, and Canada that employ common law where precedent really matters. In most of the EU the system of civil law is used, where the judiciary is expected to be much more literal and to not perform much interpretation or reference to previous interpretations.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Aaaand then we have the Scandinavian systems which are somehow both.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      Civil law has a concept similar to the common law world's respect for prior judicial rulings, but weaker. It's called jurisprudence constante (a French phrase). The impact of a single ruling on future rulings is not huge, but a series of rulings all in accord will be treated as strongly persuasive. It's still secondary to the statute and not 100% binding, but nevertheless it is a real part of the system. Also, both the US and Canada have a civil law jurisdiction: Louisiana and Quebec, respectively. Both do make some use of common law as well, but private law (governing relations between non-state parties) is even now predominantly civil law in both places. If the original actors in this case were non-state parties, I expect that civil law would be applicable to a hypothetical Quebec version of this dispute. In Louisiana, same thing if the relevant law was at the state level rather than federal. (In Quebec, even federal laws are interpreted using civil law principles when covering private law topics.)
elliekelly 8y ago
This confuses me as well. When a company has information about a natural person and that person was not the source of the information that person has a right to request the source and the company must disclose it. As far as I know that request/disclosure does not extend to the member state enforcement agencies.
- coldtea 8y ago
  In this case, the person (a politician) did request it -- and the enforcement agencies (headed by pals of said politician) try to make sure they'll get it.
closeparen 8y ago
Journalism is the practice of collecting information about people and disseminating it without their consent. Otherwise you’re just redistributing press releases.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  This brings up an interesting question: if I tell people about you, am I doing something illegal?
  - geocar 8y ago
    It depends what you tell them.
  - quickthrower2 8y ago
    What if I remember something about you?
    - Thiez 8y ago
      You are probably joking, but the GDPR (and also the 'right to be forgotten') is not and has never been about the actual memories of a natural person. You diary (if you have one) is also not included in its scope. You can remember whatever you want, about anyone or anything.
      - mcguire 8y ago
        What part of the GDPR specifically addresses that?
        bulatb 8y ago
        No part of the GDPR specifically allows you to remember things, but Article 2 (which limits the scope of the law to data processed as part of a filing system) does except processing for purely personal activities in 2(2)(c). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/

by Thiez 8y ago

treewhistle 8y ago

You can read an English translation of the demand letter here: https://www.occrp.org/en/16-other/other-articles/8876-english-translation-of-the-letter-from-the-romanian-data-protection-authority-to-rise-project https://www.occrp.org/en/16-other/other-articles/8876-englis...

e12e 8y ago
Thanks for that. Some of those points are actually reasonable, and a journalist should be comfortably within rights to respond that sources need to be kept secret, and comment why/how/why not subjects were alerted to the publication (perhaps given a chance to comment). Hopefully this'll go to court and set a precedent that more in line with the spirit of the gdpr.
- krastanov 8y ago
  I am not quite certain how much a precedent matters here. Of the western world we have the US, UK, and Canada that employ common law where precedent really matters. In most of the EU the system of civil law is used, where the judiciary is expected to be much more literal and to not perform much interpretation or reference to previous interpretations.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Aaaand then we have the Scandinavian systems which are somehow both.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    Civil law has a concept similar to the common law world's respect for prior judicial rulings, but weaker. It's called jurisprudence constante (a French phrase). The impact of a single ruling on future rulings is not huge, but a series of rulings all in accord will be treated as strongly persuasive. It's still secondary to the statute and not 100% binding, but nevertheless it is a real part of the system. Also, both the US and Canada have a civil law jurisdiction: Louisiana and Quebec, respectively. Both do make some use of common law as well, but private law (governing relations between non-state parties) is even now predominantly civil law in both places. If the original actors in this case were non-state parties, I expect that civil law would be applicable to a hypothetical Quebec version of this dispute. In Louisiana, same thing if the relevant law was at the state level rather than federal. (In Quebec, even federal laws are interpreted using civil law principles when covering private law topics.)

elliekelly 8y ago

This confuses me as well. When a company has information about a natural person and that person was not the source of the information that person has a right to request the source and the company must disclose it. As far as I know that request/disclosure does not extend to the member state enforcement agencies.

coldtea 8y ago
In this case, the person (a politician) did request it -- and the enforcement agencies (headed by pals of said politician) try to make sure they'll get it.

closeparen 8y ago

Journalism is the practice of collecting information about people and disseminating it without their consent. Otherwise you’re just redistributing press releases.

saagarjha 8y ago
This brings up an interesting question: if I tell people about you, am I doing something illegal?
- geocar 8y ago
  It depends what you tell them.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  What if I remember something about you?
  - Thiez 8y ago
    You are probably joking, but the GDPR (and also the 'right to be forgotten') is not and has never been about the actual memories of a natural person. You diary (if you have one) is also not included in its scope. You can remember whatever you want, about anyone or anything.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      What part of the GDPR specifically addresses that?
      - bulatb 8y ago
        No part of the GDPR specifically allows you to remember things, but Article 2 (which limits the scope of the law to data processed as part of a filing system) does except processing for purely personal activities in 2(2)(c). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/