Data strategy: experts demand criminality of deanonymization

Data strategy: Experts demand criminality of Deanonymization

The data strategy of the federal government, which was adopted at the end of january, points in principle with its approach for a non-good-oriented sharing of measured values and information in the right direction, experts agreed on wednesday at an appeal in the bundestag. The coarse part of the experts spoke at the same time, however, for it, to readjust in the intended measures and to summarize them more concrete.


Positive is the multiple clear commitment to the informational self-determination, explained the federal data protection officer ulrich kelber. This can increase the confidence in the data concomities. In the catalog of listed initiatives, the data protection is too short. In particular, kelber relates to the opinion of the data ethics commission, which he belonged. Decisive is, in whose sense one "offset of the trial of deanonymization of data" to accomplish.

The bonn information loou louisa specht-riemenschneider supported this appeal. Especially for researchers, it is crucial to anonymize data to them then "in protected areas" evaluate. But it is necessary to create a permit status in order to previously not raise and save anonymized measured values. Must the amption that in a then anonymization after the state of science and technology "actual protection" present.

Demand standardized procedures

Lina honest from the federal association of consumer centers (VZBV) also roared that the strategy "no clear ban on deanonymization" contents. It is necessary to demand standardized methods for the anonymization. Relieved she showed that the government gives the vague concept of a data property a cancellation and generally "no counterpole for privacy" have built up. However, many of the ies ied were not consistently pursued. It often remains with non-binding absorbors.

The coexistence of fundamental rights protection and innovation was lobless, the executive and the legislators had to "especially for standards in anonymization do something", underlined the board of the foundation privacy, frederick richter. Even "dickenstobe after brussel in terms of interoperability" had the work well.

The right to data portability anchored in the data protection basic regulation (DSGVO) does not work in practice so far as there is no compatibility of the systems. A user KONNE KONNE HIS DATE ABOUT FOR FACEBOOK, twitter must do this but not feed. Here it would be better to connect services together, for example, to send a message to threema from whatsapp.

"Hate on cookie banner"

Richter lacks the idea of giving voluntary data parts as part of the responsibility of a company in society within the meaning of digital corporate social responsibility. So it fell easier to build a data allotment in general. Also at PIMS (personal information management systems) for setting a fixed user proposition approximately for some buying tracking, the government was too short jumped. So stay with it "hate on cookie banner" and a concomitant "consent". The lawyer interpreted that the DSGVO currently provides for an informed opt-in for each individual case.

There are better practices necessary to add data to "desiccant" and effectively lifting the passenger reference, aline blankertz closed by the foundation new responsibility to the tenor of her colleagues in anonymization. Otherwise risks threatened about "federated learning" through algorithms, as these were able to access discriminatory presets despite less stringent precautions.

Sector-specific and purposeful

In the discussion, the prudent trust increased in the discussion, which, according to the executive, the data parts as "trustworthy intermediare" especially to make the middle class tasty. Woodpecker-beltschneider saw a key element for the solution of a whole series of problems in order to better use, for example, measured values from a networked vehicle according to specified rules. Even clinics wanted to exchange medical data stronger with each other, the lawiner reported. It should therefore be useful to normalize access stresses sector-specific and purposeful and to increase legal certainty for that. The task of science is still to systematize the many forms of trusts and pronounce recommendations for concrete variants and instruments.

The idea "self-free data loyalty" as a deputy of the users lying on the hand, constated kelber. But potential commercial self-interests had to be stronger in the look and one "fragmented supervisory landscape" be prevented. Certain intermediamen could be legally active, for other models still need clarifications.

Request open source

The stronger digital sovereignty propagated with the strategy "needs a sustainable requirement of open source infrastructure", underlined henriette litta from the open knowledge foundation germany. So european values such as privacy and accessibility could be well secured. The expert encouraged more investment in open protocols and software libraries. This aspect lacks in the paper.

Furthermore, the open government partnership is not available, which for a transparent government style. Litta also denies that the government is neither a paper nor with its draft reform of the open data law a legal right to open administrative data. As a pioneer, the state continues to be sufficiently sufficiently, a commitment is not sufficient. There are no considerations to assist against data misuse. For the administration, it needs arrangements to do not "the disciplines of the data power" bed.

Almost nothing to complain about the template had the munchner digitalisierungsverler dirk heckmann. He celebrated the strategy with their mission statement of data culture as a landmark and source of inspiration for business, science and civil society. The use of information is the basic requirement for public tasks such as health care, which has again proven to be with the corona pandemic. He only saw that the government has no initiative for a more uniform interpretation of data protection law. At office 365, for example, many are irritated that the data protection officers "no microsoft cloud" wanted to. Here, the supervisors should vote faster and inform the public better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *