D7.4: Implications of profiling practices on democracy

Title: CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Compared to far reaching technological developments in the past, such as the industrialisation, we are currently in a quite good position. We have constituted over many years stable democracies with established separation of powers (legislature, executive, judiciary). We have access to information that is not dominated by one actor in policy and economy. And we have independent research looking into impacts of new technologies on society and thus democracy. From this point of view we are highly enabled to deal with profiling as a (not really new) technology. As a result we should be able to get an overview of potential problem areas in order to ensure a balanced democratic system and to develop legislation towards this target. 

Data protection legislation faces limitations today and could face even more tomorrow with far developed ambient intelligent scenarios. Current data protection legislation was made for another understanding of collecting and processing of data as profiling techniques offers them today. But the instruments of data protection in general apply – a group profile or other knowledge linked to a person (e.g. a scoring value) is again personal data and thus regulated by the legislation. In addition we have many opportunities to adjust the instruments for privacy protection – and specific data protection legislation only is one of them. Other instruments are: legislation in other areas and technical solutions for privacy-preserving data mining, identity management, and multilateral security.  

In the long run I personally do not fear a lasting negative impact of profiling techniques on democracy and the rule of law – but we have to observe technological developments and their implementation into society carefully and if necessary to adjust legislation and its enforcement. 

Martin Meints 

(Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz)