In the last couple of days, commenting a Linkedin post about Article 29’s (the future European Data Protection Supervisor) opinions, I’ve been involved in an interesting thread that can be summarized as “Authority vs. Legal Interpretation”. Continue reading “Enforcing the GDPR: Authority vs Legal Interpretation”
Playing God. CRISPR and the re-shaping of fundamental rights
I just came back from Japan where I gave a few lectures on data protection, computer forensics and genetics. I addressed this last topic at Tokyo’s Keio University with a talk titled “Playing God. CRISPR and the re-shaping of fundamental rights“.
This is the agenda (the transcript is coming…):
Agenda 議題
|
Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics Basics |
分子生物学とBioinformaticsの基本 |
|
CRISPR – A Step Ahead |
CRISPR ?一歩先 |
|
Law, Science, Religion |
法則, 科学, 宗教 |
|
Can Life be Owned? |
人生を所有することは可能ですか |
|
Copyright: a New Cage |
Copyright: ?新しい檻 |
|
Who Owns (Bio) information |
誰が(bio)情報を所有しているか |
|
Genetics, Privacy and Data Protection |
遺伝学, 内証, 情報の保護 |
|
Freedom of Research |
研究の自由 |
|
Criminal Investigations and Trials |
犯罪捜査と刑事裁判 |
|
National DNA Database and Public Policing |
警察庁DNA型データベース・システムと政治戦略 |
|
Conclusions |
終局 |
Upcoming Data Protection Regulation to Hampers Genetic and Pharmaceutical Research
The privacy hysteria that since twenty or so years affects policy makers and data protection authorities, reached a new peak with the upcoming data protection regulation whose text has been published last Dec, 18, 2015.
While, thanks God, the text clearly states that “biosample” as such aren’t “personal data”
genetic data should be defined as personal data relating to the genetic characteristics of an individual which have been inherited or acquired as they result from an analysis of a biological sample from the individual in question, in particular by chromosomal, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA) analysis or analysis of any other element enabling equivalent information to be obtained
Nevertheless there is no clear reference to the fact that genetic (and, in general, health-related) researches can’t be pre-emptively limited to specific processing since scientists work with microscopes and not with crystal balls.
The result is that every research project that deals with patient (and patient’s relatives) records might face enormous bureaucratic burdens every time a new path of study emerges from the current one.
Furthermore, the regulation says that:
Member States may maintain or introduce further conditions, including limitations, with regard to the processing of genetic data, biometric data or health data
In other words, then, we will likely face a flood of local regulation that will make harder to perform researches that save human life.
Sure, there will always be the possibility to challenge in court the letter of the law, claiming that no provision can be interpreted in such a way to endanger human life and that data protection, in constitutional terms, is a “lesser right” when compared to the right to health. But this takes time, money and an open-minded court.
In the meantime, scientists will either slow down their activities or risk to be taken in court.
Does it make sense?
Fay, online advertising’s goof and the information overload
In this post I’ve shown what happens when the advertising process slips out of control: a brand is associated to a wrong message because of the lack of attention to every single step of a campaign.
In other times this mistake would have had dire consequences for the advertising agency… accounts fired, campaign suspended and, maybe, public apologies. But today is (in)different.
Who will ever notice – let alone, remember – the misery exploitation associated with this brand (again, unbeknownst by its management)?
Who will take appropriate actions to avoid a similar mistake in the future?
Who cares?
This is one of the consequences of the information overload: be sloppy. After a couple of hours nobody will even remember about it.
Stop Apple and Google To Take Over Our Cars
Google just announced its “Android Auto” platform, while Apple already did ? it with Carplay. Both platforms require an Internet connection and, it is just matter of time, will become more and more deeply interconnected with the car control system.
But software do fail. It fails because there’s no such thing as a bug-free software, it fails because people do mistakes, it fails because the software house’s roadmap not necessarily matches the final users’ safety.
And I don’t care about the usual PR stunts such as “as soon as we discovered the bug we did our best to fix it the fastest way” or “since the xyz library is licensed and proprietary we can’t keep responsibility for the way the software behave” or, finally, “if you just read the EULA you will find that it is clearly stated that we don’t take any responsibility for blah, blah, blah…”
This is a price we cannot afford to pay.