Talk:Data Protection Directive/Archives/2017
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Principles
citing http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecd_privacy_framework.pdf
the 8 basic principles of national application
Collection Limitation Principle
There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject.Data Quality Principle
Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, complete and kept up-to-date.Purpose Specification Principle
The purposes for which personal data are collected should be specified not later than at the time of data collection and the subsequent use limited to the fulfilment of those purposes or such others as are not incompatible with those purposes and as are specified on each occasion of change of purpose.Use Limitation Principle
Personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with Paragraph 9 except:
a) with the consent of the data subject; or
b) by the authority of law.Security Safeguards Principle
Personal data should be protected by reasonable security safeguards against such risks as loss or unauthorised access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure of data.Openness Principle
There should be a general policy of openness about developments, practices and policies with respect to personal data. Means should be readily available of establishing the existence and nature of personal data, and the main purposes of their use, as well as the identity and usual residence of the data controller.Individual Participation Principle
An individual should have the right:
a) to obtain from a data controller, or otherwise, confirmation of whether or not the data controller has data relating to him;
b) to have communicated to him, data relating to him within a reasonable time;
at a charge, if any, that is not excessive;
in a reasonable manner; and
in a form that is readily intelligible to him;
c) to be given reasons if a request made under subparagraphs(a) and (b) is denied, and to be able to challenge such denial; and
d) to challenge data relating to him and, if the challenge is successful to have the data erased, rectified, completed or amended.
Accountability Principle
A data controller should be accountable for complying with measures which give effect to the principles stated above.
Hartestem (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Stumbled accross the same issue: Wikipedia mentions 7 privacy principles citing a journal article from 2001. These principles don't match the OECD principles (see post of Hartestem above). Furthermore, I didn't find any additional literature showing that the 7 principles from the journal article “governed” the creation of the OECD recommendation. Regarding the Data Protection Directive, I don't see, how these principles were “incorporated”; the directive doesn't have explicitly named principles (if I didn't oversee something). Hence I assume, these 7 principles are just the point of view of the article's author, but haven't been the foundation of the OECD recommendation or the Data Protection Directive.
My suggestion for editing the Wikipedia article: Let's remove the 7 principles and the cited journal article and replace it with the 8 principles from the OECD document. The page Privacy policy needs to be corrected as well.
We also need to look at the other statements justified with the cited journal article:
- “The United States, meanwhile, while endorsing the OECD's recommendations, did nothing to implement them within the United States.” seems to be valid and might remain with or without citing the article. But is this relevant in an article about the Data Protection Directive?
- “However, all seven principles were incorporated into the EU Directive.” won't make sense any more if we replace the principles.
Chwinter (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Comparison with United States data protection law
"The reasoning behind this approach probably[original research?] has as much to do with American laissez-faire economics as with different social perspectives.[citation needed]"
I think this statement should be removed for the following reasons
- 1. Introduces opinion by using the words probably
- 2. Could not find citation source for it since 2015
A4j023e11 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to consider your first point, since your second point is sufficient to allow you to just remove it and let the discussion continue here. Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material#How_to_remove_material BFG (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"In 2013, Phil Zimmermann, author of Pretty Good Privacy, has called the EU's requirement of data retention worse for the individual than the ad-hoc policies of the US, though his own servers are in Canada and Switzerland."
This paragraph seems out of place. It relates to the EU's data retention directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) not the EU's Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC), which is the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.233.181.88 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)