Jef Ausloos

Audiovisual Media Services 3.0: (Re)defining the Scope of European Broadcasting Law in a Converging and Connected Media Environment

The publishing and broadcasting sectors are characterized by a different historical evolution. Whereas the publishing sector was organized as a realm of the market in the 19th century, broadcasting was almost immediately captured as a government monopoly in the 1920s–1930s (Noam, 1992; HOffmann-Riem, 1996). As a result, there is a large consensus on the fact that regulation in the publishing sector sets out from the ‘free market place of ideas’ theory, relying mainly on market forces complemented with self-regulation. This ‘hands Off’ approach for print media sharply contrasts with the regulatory burden on broadcasting. Regulation in the broadcasting sector was triggered by technological concerns (e.g., spectrum scarcity) and the delicate relationship between mass media, mass deception and electoral gain (Pauwels, 1995). Because of the general presumption that quality and pluralism can only be achieved through government intervention and that citizens need protection from the powerful mass media, content-related (e.g., quota, protection of minors and advertising) and structural (e.g., ownership rules, although substantially relaxed in the last decade) measures are widespread in the broadcasting sector (Curran & Seaton, 2003).

When Data Protection by Design and Data Subject Rights Clash

Data protection law has historically faced significant enforcement challenges. Data protection authorities (DPAs) have classically been underfunded and outgunned, possessing limited ability to scrutinize the onthe-ground practices of data controllers and restricted capacity to meaningfully act when transgressions are suspected. In response to these governance challenges, concerned communities have advocated a range of technological approaches that allow effective but noninvasive use of data, or ‘DIY’ protections which data subjects can adopt unilaterally. These approaches, often called ‘privacy-enhancing technologies’ (PETs), are commonly discussed in regulatory circles within the context of ‘privacy by design’ (PbD). PbD emphasizes that issues of privacy should be considered from the start and throughout the design process through creative social and technical means. Most point to its intellectual home in a report undertaken by the Dutch Data Protection Authority and TNO, with support of the then Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario, Tom Wright, although its heritage can be traced further back to the considerations given to ‘technical and organizational measures’ in the Key Points

Designing-by-Debate: A Blueprint for Responsible Data-Driven Research & Innovation

The emergence and rapid development of ICT-centred research methodologies, and data-driven research and innovation in particular, fundamentally challenge ethical values, human rights and security in the EU and beyond. This is especially—though not exclusively—the result of fragmented legal, ethical and terminological frameworks; a mismatch between rules and how they are applied or disregarded in practice; the privatisation of research data and methods; the fact that these challenges are spread over multiple actors and disciplines and issues raised by data opportunism. These challenges keep Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) largely hypothetical in many contexts and may lead to social rejection and distorted legislation of emerging research methodologies as well as the huge socio-economic potential they hold. This contribution advances the first blueprint for an innovative approach aimed at overcoming the challenges obstructing the full realisation of RRI. The Designing-by-Debate (DbD) approach provides a systematic model and method for inclusive dialogue through smart stewardship, enabling researchers and the broader stakeholder community to develop, fine-tune and operationalise the framework for RRI to their situation. It is an iterative process based on different forms of participatory debate, aimed at formulating RRI protocols and policies with maximal participation from all stakeholders. The method relies on sharing protocols and guidelines so that they can be used and improved simultaneously through new RRI applications. The DbD approach has different well-defined layers and components, that are aimed at making RRI work in the field. Notwithstanding its greater ambitions, the scope of this contribution is confined to DbD in the context of data-driven research and innovation (and how to align it with ethical, normative, and societal values that are central to the EU identity). DbD, we argue, provides the prerequisites for a holistic yet concrete approach to key legal, ethical and social challenges emerging from ubiquitous use of technology and ‘data’ to do research and innovation.