Second-Generation European Data Protection and Professional Journalism

D. Erdos
{"title":"Second-Generation European Data Protection and Professional Journalism","authors":"D. Erdos","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198841982.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on the results of an extensive questionnaire of European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), this chapter explores these regulators’ substantive orientation and detailed approach to standard-setting in the area of professional journalism under the Data Protection Directive. As regards news production, a large majority of DPAs accepted that the special expressive purposes derogation was engaged. Notwithstanding a greater emphasis on an internal balancing of rights within default data protection norms, this also remained the plurality view also as regards news archives. Detailed standard-setting was explored through hypothetical scenarios relating to undercover investigative journalism and data subject access demands made of journalists. It was found that, notwithstanding conflicts in many cases with statutory transparency and sensitive data provisions, all DPAs accepted the essential legitimacy of undercover journalism and over one-third only required that such activity conform to a permissive public interest test that didn’t explicitly incorporate a necessity threshold. In contrast, a much stricter approach was taken to the articulation of standards relating to subject access, with over one-third arguing that, aside from protecting information relating to sources, journalists would be obliged to comply with the default rules here in full. This difference may be linked to the divergent treatment of these issues within self-regulatory media codes: whilst almost all set down general ‘ethical’ norms applicable to undercover journalism, almost none did so as regards subject access. Despite the general tendency to ‘read down’ statutory provisions relating to undercover journalism, the severity of a DPAs’ approach to each scenario remained strongly correlated with the stringency of local law applicable to journalism.","PeriodicalId":315594,"journal":{"name":"European Data Protection Regulation, Journalism, and Traditional Publishers","volume":"131 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Data Protection Regulation, Journalism, and Traditional Publishers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841982.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing on the results of an extensive questionnaire of European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), this chapter explores these regulators’ substantive orientation and detailed approach to standard-setting in the area of professional journalism under the Data Protection Directive. As regards news production, a large majority of DPAs accepted that the special expressive purposes derogation was engaged. Notwithstanding a greater emphasis on an internal balancing of rights within default data protection norms, this also remained the plurality view also as regards news archives. Detailed standard-setting was explored through hypothetical scenarios relating to undercover investigative journalism and data subject access demands made of journalists. It was found that, notwithstanding conflicts in many cases with statutory transparency and sensitive data provisions, all DPAs accepted the essential legitimacy of undercover journalism and over one-third only required that such activity conform to a permissive public interest test that didn’t explicitly incorporate a necessity threshold. In contrast, a much stricter approach was taken to the articulation of standards relating to subject access, with over one-third arguing that, aside from protecting information relating to sources, journalists would be obliged to comply with the default rules here in full. This difference may be linked to the divergent treatment of these issues within self-regulatory media codes: whilst almost all set down general ‘ethical’ norms applicable to undercover journalism, almost none did so as regards subject access. Despite the general tendency to ‘read down’ statutory provisions relating to undercover journalism, the severity of a DPAs’ approach to each scenario remained strongly correlated with the stringency of local law applicable to journalism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
第二代欧洲数据保护和专业新闻
根据欧洲数据保护当局(dpa)广泛问卷调查的结果,本章探讨了这些监管机构在数据保护指令下的专业新闻领域的实质性取向和详细的标准制定方法。关于新闻制作,绝大多数新闻行政长官接受了特殊表达目的的减损。尽管更加强调在默认数据保护规范内的内部权利平衡,但对于新闻档案来说,这仍然是多数人的看法。通过与卧底调查新闻和记者提出的数据主体访问要求有关的假设情景,探讨了详细的标准制定。人们发现,尽管在许多情况下与法定透明度和敏感数据规定存在冲突,但所有dpa都接受卧底新闻的基本合法性,超过三分之一的dpa只要求此类活动符合许可的公共利益测试,而该测试没有明确纳入必要性门槛。相比之下,在阐述与采访对象接触有关的标准方面采取了更为严格的做法,超过三分之一的人认为,除了保护与消息来源有关的信息外,记者有义务完全遵守这里的默认规则。这种差异可能与自律媒体规范中对这些问题的不同处理有关:虽然几乎所有人都制定了适用于卧底新闻的一般“道德”规范,但几乎没有人在主题访问方面这样做。尽管普遍倾向于“解读”与卧底新闻有关的法律规定,但DPAs对每种情况的处理方式的严重性仍然与适用于新闻业的当地法律的严格程度密切相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Second-Generation European Data Protection and Professional Journalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1