Putting the Fox in Charge? Political Parties and the GDPR: An Irish Perspective

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Public Law Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.54648/euro2020048
Maeve McDonagh
{"title":"Putting the Fox in Charge? Political Parties and the GDPR: An Irish Perspective","authors":"Maeve McDonagh","doi":"10.54648/euro2020048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of Cambridge Analytica, the use of personal data by political parties has been subject to increased scrutiny. Given the specific policy challenges which such use poses, this article examines the conditions for the lawful processing of personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as it applies to political parties. It identifies the extensive flexibilities afforded by the GDPR to Member States and argues that granular Member State analysis is required if the GDPR regime is to be meaningfully evaluated in this context. Using Ireland as a detailed case study and referencing the equivalent provisions of the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA UK) for comparison, the article examines the different ways in which these Member States responded to the flexibility afforded by the GDPR. Based on this, the article argues that closer engagement with the issue of political parties by the European Data Protection Board is needed in order to provide a more fine-grained response which bridges the space between the ‘one size fits all’ approach in the GDPR and the wide-ranging discretion of the flexibilities afforded to Member States.\nGDPR, political parties, lawful processing, freedom of expression, public interest, European Data Protection Board","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the wake of Cambridge Analytica, the use of personal data by political parties has been subject to increased scrutiny. Given the specific policy challenges which such use poses, this article examines the conditions for the lawful processing of personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as it applies to political parties. It identifies the extensive flexibilities afforded by the GDPR to Member States and argues that granular Member State analysis is required if the GDPR regime is to be meaningfully evaluated in this context. Using Ireland as a detailed case study and referencing the equivalent provisions of the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA UK) for comparison, the article examines the different ways in which these Member States responded to the flexibility afforded by the GDPR. Based on this, the article argues that closer engagement with the issue of political parties by the European Data Protection Board is needed in order to provide a more fine-grained response which bridges the space between the ‘one size fits all’ approach in the GDPR and the wide-ranging discretion of the flexibilities afforded to Member States. GDPR, political parties, lawful processing, freedom of expression, public interest, European Data Protection Board
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
让狐狸当家?政党与GDPR:爱尔兰视角
在剑桥分析(Cambridge Analytica)事件之后,政党对个人数据的使用受到了越来越多的审查。鉴于此类使用所带来的具体政策挑战,本文研究了《通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)下合法处理个人数据的条件,因为它适用于政党。它确定了GDPR为成员国提供的广泛灵活性,并认为如果要在此背景下对GDPR制度进行有意义的评估,则需要对成员国进行详细的分析。本文以爱尔兰作为详细的案例研究,并参考《2018年英国数据保护法》(DPA UK)的等效条款进行比较,研究了这些成员国应对GDPR提供的灵活性的不同方式。基于此,本文认为,欧洲数据保护委员会需要更密切地参与政党问题,以便提供更细致的回应,弥合GDPR中“一刀切”的方法与成员国提供的灵活性的广泛自由裁量权之间的空间。GDPR,政党,合法处理,言论自由,公共利益,欧洲数据保护委员会
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘Respect for Religious Feelings’: As the Italian Case Shows, Fresh Paint Can’t Fix the Crumbling Wall of Blasphemy The ‘Then’ and the ‘Now’ of Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples: Repercussions in International Law, Torts and Beyond Subsidiarity v. Autonomy in the EU Book Review: Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, Erika Arban, Giuseppe Martinico & Francesco Palermo (eds). London and New York: Routledge. 2021 The Tragic Choices During the Global Health Emergency: Comparative Economic Law Reflections
×
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