No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the German courts’ rejection of the request by an internationally active entrepreneur for an injunction against certain statements about him in an article published in the online edition of the New York Times.
The Court found that the German courts had struck a reasonable balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. They had taken into consideration, in particular: that there had been a public interest in the alleged involvement of the applicant, a German businessman, in embezzlement and organised crime; that there had been a sufficient factual basis for the statements at issue; and that the article – which concerned mainly his professional life – was free from polemic statements and insinuations.
There is no such thing as “right to access algorithms” under the GDPR .
Section 15 first paragraph letter h) GDPR only gives the right to obtain
meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject.
but this definition can hardly be considered as a synonym for algorithm, thus is just plain wrong to say that GDPR deals with mathematical methods.
As it should be well known even outside the circle of the Intellectual Property cognoscenti, within the EU algorithms have no legal protection (and this is rightly so, because you can neither copyright nor patent mathematics) so the only way an industry can take advantage of a specific mathematical method (i.e. an algorithm) is through secrecy.
Pushing the GDPR reach more far from what is written into the law means to force a company to withdraw from the only way to protect a company’s valuable assets.