The advertising industry has sharply criticized the proposal of the European Commission for the ePrivacy Regulation which is meant to improve online data protection. What do you think about the legislative proposal?
Christoph Bauer: The proposed text for the ePrivacy Regulation is a specification of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but which goes in a different direction than expected from the GDPR. So far, legislation pursued the objective to enable existing business models of the industry further on. This has changed significantly, as an opt-in by the user is required for third party cookies and other tracking technologies, what has not been the case before. Furthermore, the implementation period will not be two years, but the ePrivacy Regulation shall come into force together with the GDPR in May 2018. As it is so far only a proposal, the implementation period will probably be very short. In total, the procedure oft the Commission is very unusual and thus astonished the impacted industry. Some people as IAB Germany vice president Thomas Duhr are afraid that the internet as we know it today will not exist any more.
The measures impacting the cookies is part of a longer list of legislative proposals for the improvement of data protection in electronic communication. The European Commission presented it as a possibility to simplify the settings of acceptance or denial of cookies that access data on the user’s computer or that track the user’s online behavior. Which consequences could this text have if it will be accepted unmodified?
If the regulation comes into force unmodified, big shifts are to be expected in the online advertising and technology business, because this regulation actually favors the big players as Facebook and Google that already have got an opt-in. But the consequences for all other players of the online marketing industry would be devastating. That cannot be the interest of the Commission.
The European Commission wants to “guarantee the privacy of online behavior and of the users’ devices” and to transfer the control to the user. In your opinion, how can that fundamental principle and the need to finance content with advertising be brought together? In other words, what amendments could be proposed for this law?
CB: It could be an idea to permit anonymous tracking, as neither the GDPR affects anonymous data. Thus, if someone tracks a user without knowing his personal data as name, address, email address, ip address etc, tracking by cookies and other trackers might be allowed. Because the person behind anonymous data cannot be identified by the one who gets the anonymous data.
Besides, there are tracking methods that do not leave traces on the users’ devices (as cookie text files in browsers do), but that track the device anyway. Insofar it can happen that third party cookies will be forbidden, but that other technologies will take their place, that actually have got the same effects but are not forbidden. Given that, the legislator would have missed the target.