D11.2: Mobility and LBS

Title: EMERGENCY CALLS AND LOCATION BASED SERVICES

Emergency calls and Location Based Services

Art. 10 (b) of 2002/58/EC Directive foresees a general exception to the rule of previous consent for the processing of location data for emergency calls. National organisations dealing with emergency calls and recognised as such are entitled to override the temporary denial or absence of consent of a subscriber or a user for the purpose of responding to such calls. This provision echoes Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (the ‘Universal Service Directive’) which requires public telephone network operators to make caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, for all calls made to the single European emergency call number 112.

In this field, the “e-call” initiative promoted by the European Commission should be mentioned. This initiative aims at introducing a harmonised pan-European in-vehicle emergency call service. For 2010, all new vehicles should have this service as a standard option. As defined in the European Commission Recommendation of 25 July 2003, ‘emergency service’ means a service, recognised as such by the Member State, that provides immediate and rapid assistance in situations where there is a direct risk to life or limb, individual or public health or safety, to private or public property, or the environment but not necessarily limited to these situations.

The eCall consists of two elements: a pure voice (audio) telephone call based on 112 and a minimum set of data. The eCall (data & voice) carried through the mobile network, is recognised by the mobile network operator as an 112 emergency call. Based on the 112 handling procedure, the operator enriches the call with the caller line identification, and, adds the best location available. This information is transmitted to the appropriate public safety answering point, i.e. the public authority or private service provider operating under the responsibility of a public authority, which is in charge of organising the emergency service (WP29, WP125: 3). 

The minimum set of data consists of the time of incident, precise location including direction of driving, vehicle identification, eCall qualifier giving the severity of the incident (as a minimum, an indication if eCall has been manually or automatically triggered) and the information about a possible service provider.

Several data protection issues have been raised by the Working Party 29. First of all, the safeguards should be adapted depending on whether the service is optional or obligatory. In the first case, the Working Party 29 recommends that the device should only be activated upon the request of the user or when a crash occurs in order to enable the data subject to act on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, it should only record limited location data. The Working Party 29 highlights the fact that pressure from insurance car companies or car rental, as well as the obligation put on employees using company cars, to keep the device constantly activated should be considered as illegal.

Regarding the grounds that legitimate the processing, it reminds that even if in many cases, the data processing may be justified by the protection of a vital interest of the data subject (Art. 7 (c), (d), (e) of 95/46/EC Directive), and thus will not required its previous consent, it will no be supported by these grounds in any case. For instance, accidents which do not require the intervention of emergency services might occur and thus activate the device automatically.  

In case the activation of the system will be mandatory, the Working Party 29 recommends the enactment of a whole set of rules which should be properly justified in terms of data protection, particularly with regard to the principle of proportionality. It advocates for the use of privacy enhancing technologies in order to empower the data subject to choose his own level of privacy protection. 

Another privacy concern arises with the possibility of offering value-added services besides the emergency services. This second level of service lies in adding to the exchanged “basic” information, additional information held by a third party providing added value services, e.g. insurance companies, automobile call centres, medical companies, lawyers, motor clubs, etc. For this it would be necessary to broaden the type of data contained into the minimum set of data. The user would allow the service provider to receive the additional data related to the incident or to the vehicle’s occupant. This specific scenario raises the problem of proportionality of the data transferred to the third party for other purposes than the strict provision of the emergency service. “En-bloc” transfers should be avoided and it must be ensured that each third party provider only receives those data that are required for the purposes of the respective contract, etc. Specific provisions should also be taken to cover the cases when sensitive data are processed.

A third concern consists of the creation of databases with the purpose to avoid misuse or abuse of the system in relation to the access by third parties and to possible secondary uses of the personal data transferred. These databases are foreseen to link the car owner’s identity and the SIM card of the eCall system and to allow the tracking of the misusing system. This will be possible either by requiring the mobile network operator to identify the owner of the device, as is the case for 112 calls, either by requiring the identification of the authority controlling the Vehicle Identification Numbers.