Speaker 1: The European Union's Data Protection Rules, known by the acronym GDPR,
Speaker 1: are one of the most significant and far reaching of
Speaker 1: Europe's technology regulations in for since twenty eighteen. It's been
Speaker 1: described as a gold standard for data protection, but has
Speaker 1: come in for criticism from the Trump administration for unfairly
Speaker 1: targeting American tech companies. The pressure from the US comes
Speaker 1: amid a drive in Brussels to reduce regulatory burden for companies,
Speaker 1: which includes changes to the GDPR. The European Data Protection
Speaker 1: Board ensures consistent enforcement of these data rules across the
Speaker 1: twenty seven EU members, and its chair an It Talus,
Speaker 1: joins us from Brussels this morning for more and a
Speaker 1: good morning. Welcome to Bloomberg Radio. Now, this review process
Speaker 1: is underway for the GDPR, but you've argued against some
Speaker 1: of the changes to the digital rule book.
Speaker 2: Why well, to start with, we also did see some
Speaker 2: of these such distance as a positive positive elements. The
Speaker 2: digital environment is getting increasingly complex and multi layered, so
Speaker 2: there are also increasing number of laws which regulate the
Speaker 2: digital environment. And it's not only about a question of
Speaker 2: the GDPR. It is also a question about the interplay
Speaker 2: with the GDPR and this other legislation, and there has
Speaker 2: been a call for simplification, and this is actually something
Speaker 2: we quite well understand. And when it comes to making
Speaker 2: the legislative framework more simple, cutting the red tape, without
Speaker 2: touching the core of the GDPR, without touching the core
Speaker 2: of the values tried to protect with the GDPR, we
Speaker 2: have actually been quite open for the sugestence. But when
Speaker 2: it comes gets closer to the core of the GDPR,
Speaker 2: and this is what we think, when it touches upon
Speaker 2: the definition of personal data, then this is where we
Speaker 2: see that it would, for example, create legal uncertainty. The
Speaker 2: suggest to amend the definition of personal data would go
Speaker 2: beyond the court's case law, and it would create a
Speaker 2: legal uncertainty. And I actually don't think that this would
Speaker 2: be beneficial for anyone. No one wants legal uncertainty.
Speaker 1: So what's the risk then if these rules that that
Speaker 1: definition were to change, will people's personal data be at risk?
Speaker 2: Well, it would most certainly create.
Speaker 1: Well more.
Speaker 2: Well, it would most certainly create legal uncertainty, So you
Speaker 2: would you would still need to find the stabilized interpretation
Speaker 2: for the new new definition. So I would say that
Speaker 2: that's the legal uncertainty is one of the core risks.
Speaker 2: At the same time, some of the data which is
Speaker 2: covered by the by the regulation for the time being
Speaker 2: would not necessarily be covered then in the future. But
Speaker 2: now we also need to recognize that there is already
Speaker 2: a core ruling in place which has changed the current interpretation,
Speaker 2: and this is something we are implementing at the moment.
Speaker 1: Do you feel that the Commission, with this proposal is
Speaker 1: bending to pressure from the United States to try and
Speaker 1: ease some of the regulatory burden that they've complained so
Speaker 1: much about.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that it's important to note that there
Speaker 2: was the Drugging Report which also referred to the complexity
Speaker 2: in the digital legal framework. And like I said, the
Speaker 2: digital environment itself is getting more complex, and there is
Speaker 2: increasing number of different claws regulating this digital environment and
Speaker 2: different phenomen in the digital environment. So the interplay between
Speaker 2: these different legislations is getting increasing increasingly complex as well.
Speaker 2: So there has been a call for the simplicity, for
Speaker 2: the simplification, and actually we the regulators, we have also
Speaker 2: taken some measures to answer these concerns.
Speaker 1: Part of the conversation that's had around this is whether
Speaker 1: regulation can keep up with technology, or whether actually we're
Speaker 1: starting innovation by regulating too much. Is this an example
Speaker 1: that you see of that happening, where as you say,
Speaker 1: the environment's changing, but the rules seem perhaps out of.
Speaker 2: Data when the environment is changing. I think it's important
Speaker 2: to recognize that, for example, GDPR, it is technology in nutural,
Speaker 2: so many of its provisions do actually fits are applicable
Speaker 2: also in new emerging technologies. But of course it takes
Speaker 2: some time to see how the rules are applied in
Speaker 2: the new technology. So there is constantly new new scene,
Speaker 2: new technology. I think that this is very very characteristics
Speaker 2: for the implementation of the Data Protection Loan. You're always
Speaker 2: facing with new situations with the new technology. It's not
Speaker 2: only the new legislation, it is the new technology as well.
Speaker 1: But of course another new element to this is the
Speaker 1: continued pressure from the Trump administration. If complained publicly and
Speaker 1: repeatedly about European technology regulation, Are the regulators that you
Speaker 1: work with across Europe feeling extra pressure from the United States?
Speaker 2: Well, we the regulators. Well, I think that you also
Speaker 2: properly know that's the level of independence of the regulators.
Speaker 2: It's actually quite high. It's enshrined in the Charter of
Speaker 2: Fundamental Rights, and the regulators are really making the decisions
Speaker 2: outside of any political pressure. And we are also we
Speaker 2: are also investing gating European companies. It is not only
Speaker 2: to US companies the regulators are investigating and focusing on
Speaker 2: the data protects and authoritis are are equally equally equally
Speaker 2: investigating European companies.
Speaker 1: So is the criticism that unfair that the US companies
Speaker 1: are being unfairly targeted?
Speaker 2: I do think that that's inaccurate. Yes, I definitely think so.
Speaker 1: I mean, MEPs have raised also concerns about the data
Speaker 1: sharing agreements between the US and the EU. I wonder
Speaker 1: do you share any of their concerns about the change
Speaker 1: rules that we've seen in the US and how that
Speaker 1: will affect European consumers data well.
Speaker 2: When the current data privacy framework was put in place
Speaker 2: with the European Data Protects on board and European Data
Speaker 2: Products Products and Supervisor, we did give our opinion in
Speaker 2: the in the context of the of the procedure or
Speaker 2: putting putting it in place, and in our opinion we
Speaker 2: set a lot of emphasis on the judicel remedies and
Speaker 2: the red dress mechanism and these are, of course something
Speaker 2: what we will be also focusing on when there will
Speaker 2: be the bi annual review, time for the bi annual
Speaker 2: review and then other than that, it is the European
Speaker 2: Commission who monitors the Data Privacy Framework