THE EUROPEAN UNION DATA PROTECTION LEGAL FRAMEWORK – PART 3



1.0              The EU Directive covers all sectors of EU Member States economics and grants strong protection to data containing individuals’ personal information. E-Customers are given the right to sue over alleged breaches, and member states have an obligation to form government privacy agencies that will enforce the law and educate the public on privacy .

2.0               Since October 1998, the European member States have been enacting national privacy statutes to comply with the EU Directive.[1]

3.0              Dissatisfied with the mere implementation of the Directive in the member states, the EU issued Regulation 45/2001 in 2000, creating the European Data Protection Supervisor who is an independent supervisory authority[2], for the monitoring[3] of applications of the EU Directive by the EU institutions and bodies.

4.0              These comprehensive command and control model is preferred by nations that have no existing system for protecting personal data and are just beginning to implement data protection protocols, primarily because the key concept behind the comprehensive model is enforceability.

5.0              The comprehensive approach works particularly well in countries that strictly adhere to a system of general law and government oversight.[4]

6.0              The EU Directive is often accused of failing to address privacy coherently because it does not account of those that it governs.

7.0              The Directives failed to take into account the vast differences in rights, powers and incentives between the European Union member states’ respective governments and the private industry.

8.0              This resulted in the divergence of privacy standards between the EU member states .

9.0              Furthermore the government control would occur because the central provisions of the EU legislation give the government greater control over personal data, despite information privacy being characterized as fundamental human rights.

10.0          The EU Directive effectively expands government influence rather than curtails it .

11.0          The EU Commission reasoned that the Directive’s lack of success is attributable to inexperience on the part of member states, incorrect application of the Directive’s principles and attempts by governments to reduce the private sector’s compliance burdens.

12.0          The Commission also admitted that enforcement of the Directive after implementation is a problem, primarily because, first, supervisory and enforcement authorities usually do not have access to sufficient resources.

13.0          Second, the violators’ low risk of being apprehended.

14.0           Third, lack of enforcement .

15.0          The EU also carries international implications.

16.0          It is suggest an attempt by the European Union to exercise jurisdiction over foreign activities.

---

[1]               Michael L.Rustad & Thomas H.Koenig, "Harmonizing Cybertort For Europe and America" (2005) 5 ournal of High Technology 13,online,accessed on June 7^th 2005,available at http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document.

[2]               The Supervisor is an entity completely independent from European Parliament and Commission, taking no instruction from external authority.

[3]               The Supervisor is in charge of hearing and investigating complaints and generally advising the entirety of the European community on data protection matters, either upon request or on the office’s own initiative.

[4]               Ryan Moshell, "…And Then There Was One: The Outlook For A Self-Regulatory United States Amidst A Global Trend Toward Comprehensive Data Protection" (2005) 37 Texas Tech Law Review 357,online,accessed on July 6th 2005,available at http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document.