In the election year for the European Parliament a debate is needed on the interplay between data protection, media and electoral rules, and on how regulators should act to ensure fair electoral processes in the digital age. A panel discussion held at the CPDP Data protection and Democracy 2019
How do DPAs try to shape the public image of their increased authority and role under the GDPR? How do DPAs respond to the anti-GDPR press? What are the relationships between DPAs and the media of various ideological and political orientations?
What are the differences in free speech rights and privacy rights between the US and EU? What are the origins of these differences? How if at all can these differences be resolved? What can companies and individuals do when faced with competing legal rules?
Internet platforms have become important fora of public debate, offering tools for increased democratic participation and engagement. The central role of internet platforms enables them to wield considerable control over online speech. Platforms effectively have the power to decide what content to disseminate and what content to remove. The same power is used to adjust content according to the profiles of users developed on the basis of their personal data. Recent scandals have shown that platforms can be misused as instruments of misinformation, propaganda and manipulation. Policy makers try to address the issue by regulating or by incentivising platforms to adopt codes of conduct.
Which are the causes, drivers, and scope of the problem of disinformation? What role does targeted advertising play in the spread of disinformation online? What role does legislation, policy, or other initiatives have in thwarting its spread?
Art. 85 GDPR leaves most of the responsibility to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to the GDPR with the right to freedom of expression and information (Art. 11 CFR) to the member states. However, many states did little to nothing to pass specific rules to relieve the mentioned addressees. Thus, has the situation for the freedom of expression fundamentally changed? To what extent do certain rules of the GDPR enable or require a media-friendly interpretation? Which member states fulfilled their obligations to pass rules under Art. 85 GDPR? Could the lack of such rules enable a misuse of Data Protection Law that could jeopardise media freedoms?