PrivacyPod

Gather around the fire, children, and listen closely: it is time once again to enjoy CJEU case law in the best possible way with Joost’s Case Corner! Yes, Jyri and Pilvi join forces again with the amazing Joost Gerritsen and dive right back into the CJEU Super Friday cases. In this episode, we will cover: Case C-200/23, Agentsia po vpisvaniyata (A Bulgarian case about whether an individual has the right to ask the agency to delete their personal data from the company registry, the scope of legal obligation as a legal basis, whether signatures are personal data, and if the official opinion of the Data Protection Authority can shield a controller from liabilities if the court disagrees with the DPA’s opinion.) Case C-4/23, Mirin (If a first name and sex/gender are changed in one member state, must other member states recognize it as well?) Case C-768/21, Land Hessen (Does the DPA have an obligation to exercise corrective power in all cases of data breaches, particularly to impose a fine, at the demand of the data subject?) As a bonus, we also cover the following cases: C-169/23, Masdi (A Hungarian case focusing on Article 14(5)(c): does the article exempt controllers from their obligation to inform data subjects when the data processing—obtaining or disclosure—derives from national law?) C-80/23, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (A Bulgarian case about the Law Enforcement Directive (LED) regarding the concept of “strict necessity” in the context of biometric and genetic data collection for creating police records.) So lean back, close your eyes, reward yourself for making it to December of this eventful year, and let the velvety voice of Joost carry you to the wonderful wonderland of CJEU Case Law. Darling, we got you.   Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us coffee here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, or send us traditional email: Instagram: @privacypod LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tietosuojapod/about/ Email: [email protected]   Links: Case C-200/23, Agentsia po vpisvaniyata: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62023CN0200 Case C-4/23, Mirin: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-4/23 Case C-768/21, Land Hessen: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?lgrec=fr&td=%3BALL&language=en&num=C-768/21&jur=C C-169/23, Masdi: https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=AG_-_C-169/23_-_M%C3%A1sdi  

Tired of keeping up with all the CJEU case law? Want to prepare  yourself for all the cool discussions at the IAPP Brussels event? Not to worry! The Joost’s Case Corner covering the CJEU Super Friday cases has landed for you to enjoy. In the first of two of the Super Friday episodes, we will cover: Case C-21/23 Lindenapotheke (What is Art 9 data and what’s not? Can companies rat out each other regarding compliance with the GDPR (and is it smart)?) Case C-621/22 KNLT (Can a commercial interest constitute legitimate interest? We also get a brief history of this case and learn to understand the Dutch DPA a bit better and cover some hot tea on the subject.) Case C-446/21 Schrems v Facebook (Can you process publicly disclosed information on sexual orientation for targeted advertising just because it is public information?) We also learn about the most awesome Dutch legal term “breaking through the wall” and Olaus Petri (a priest who lived 1493-1552, in Swedish Olof Persson, who is still an important character in Finnish law) while discussing legal theory of EU law.  So take a good breath, let all the stress of November leave your mind, and enjoy the awesome drama that is CJEU case law!   Links: Case C-21/23 Lindenapotheke https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-21/23 Case C-621/22 KNLT https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=290688&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4086618 Case C-446/21 Schrems v Facebook https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62021CJ0446   Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us a pumpkin spice latte here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, or send us traditional email: Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy, #privacypod Instagram: @privacypod LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tietosuojapod/about/ Email: [email protected]

Are you googling me? Stop googling me, Jyri!   In this episode Jyri, Pilvi, and Milla take a look at the latest interesting privacy news. The repertoire includes discussion on what happens when regulation is 20 years late (=personalized ads and privacy issues) in the form of LinkedIn’s 310 million euro fine and NOYB’s Pinterest complaint.    We also fall in love (and you will too) with Germany’s Traunstein Court and their Schrems II case (transfers to the US), where the court gave out a decision that seems to include some common sense (no joke). Do listen in for some statements that will first make you feel warm and fuzzy, smiling from ear to ear, and then break you in the “Don’t do that, Don’t give me hope.” -meme kind of way. But hey–when was the last time you felt warm and fuzzy about a Schrems II decision? We thought so too. We all need this, we’ve been through a lot.    We also rant about the latest “know your sub-processors to the infinity and beyond” EDPB guideline draft and most importantly, Jyri tells you in detail how you can actually get some suggestions implemented in the public consultation rounds (no joke).    So grab your Halloween-candy-flavored-popcorn and enjoy some privacy goodie-goodie! You deserve it and darling, we got you. Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us a pumpkin spice latte here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, send us your Pinterest boards, or send us traditional email: Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy, #privacypod Instagram: @privacypod

In this episode, amazing hosts Milla Keller and Floora Kukorelli sit down with Jussi Mäkinen to discuss the (bright?) future of EU technology regulation. Jussi Mäkinen leads the EU regulatory team at the Federation of Finnish Technology Industries and has extensive experience in digital regulation, both in drafting policies and advocating for industry interests. The discussion revolves around the so-called Draghi Report, in which the former European Central Bank President and Prime Minister of Italy Mario Draghi warns that the EU is falling behind the US and China in the use of data and digital services. The report suggests that Europe’s declining competitiveness is partly due to its stringent data (protection) regulations. The conversation explores whether the Draghi Report marks a turning point in EU data protection policies and what it might mean for the future. The episode also looks at the role of the incoming European Commission in shaping future technology regulations, with special attention to Commissioner Henna Virkkunen from Finland, who oversees areas like technology and competitiveness. The discussion examines her approach and the potential impact it could have on EU tech regulation. Additionally, the episode delves into the future of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the fate of the ePrivacy Regulation. Our guest believes that a more practical approach to privacy is needed moving forward, with the EU striking a better balance between protecting privacy and fostering innovation - the million dollar question is, where this balance lies. This episode provides an engaging and timely look at the current state and future prospects of EU technology regulation for anyone interested in the digital economy and EU policymaking.   Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us a coffee here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, or send us traditional email: Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy, #privacypod Instagram: @privacypod LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tietosuojapod/about/ Email: [email protected]