The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal has made us realize how important strong data protection rules are for society as a whole, including for the very functioning of the democratic process.
These and other developments have shown that the protection of privacy, as a central individual right and a democratic imperative, but also as an economic necessity, is crucial: Without consumers’ trust in the way that their data are handled, our data-driven economies will not thrive.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), entering into application on May 25, is the EU’s response to these challenges and opportunities. It seeks to create a virtuous circle between better protection of privacy as a fundamental right, enhanced confidence of consumers in how the privacy and security of their data are guaranteed, in particular in the online world, and economic growth.
While building on foundations that have been in place for more than 20 years under a 1995 directive, the GDPR contains important innovations. Many of these changes are particularly relevant to Taiwanese and other foreign companies doing business in Europe.
Such companies will now offer their goods and services in a harmonized and simplified regulatory environment. Instead of having to deal with 28 different data protection laws and 28 different regulators, one set of rules will apply and will be interpreted in a uniform way throughout the continent.
Obligations to notify data processing operations or obtain prior authorization from data protection authorities will be scrapped. A number of key concepts are clarified and adapted to the needs of the digital economy. International data transfers from the EU will be simplified and facilitated. All this will mean increased legal certainty, and a significant reduction in compliance costs and red tape.
The GDPR is also based on a modern approach to regulation that rewards new ideas, methods and technologies to address privacy and data security. The principles of data protection “by design” and “by default” will create incentives to develop innovative solutions from the earliest stages of development.
The so-called “risk-based approach” means that companies that limit the level of risk of their processing operations will not be subject to a number of obligations. Coregulatory tools, such as codes of conduct and certification mechanisms, are introduced to help companies managing and demonstrating compliance.
Last but not least, new rights and safeguards, such as the right to portability or the notification of data breaches, will put individuals in better control of their data.
Empowering consumers also means ensuring that they feel safer and more confident when sharing their data. These are just a few examples of how the effective protection of a fundamental right can go hand in hand with unleashing the full potential of the digital economy.
These developments are of course not limited to Europe. Today, more than 120 countries, from almost all around the globe, have data privacy law in place. Taiwan has also adopted a data privacy law.
Many of the new, or modernized, laws tend to be based on common elements: comprehensive legislation (rather than sectorial rules), a set of enforceable rights and setting up an independent supervisory authority, among others.
While improving the level of protection of personal data when transferred abroad, this developing convergence offers new opportunities to facilitate trade, as well as cooperation between public authorities, both of which increasingly rely on the exchange of personal data.
The European Commission is committed to intensifying its dialogue with its international partners, like Taiwan, in this area, to promote and further develop elements of convergence between privacy regimes. This includes the possibility of adopting adequacy findings allowing unhindered data flows, as is being discussed with Japan and South Korea.
We are of course also open to discussions with other partners on this issue. It involves contributing to the elaboration of much-needed international standards, such as in the framework of the Council of Europe’s Convention 108, which has an increasingly universal membership.
Fostering convergence also means learning from each other through the exchange of experience and best practices. This type of dialogue is essential in our interconnected world if we want to address challenges that are increasingly global in nature and scope.
Vera Jourova is European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS