During their informal meeting on Tuesday 18 July in Tallinn, European Ministers for Telecommunications and Competitiveness acknowledged the importance of removing the obstacles to the free flow of data in the EU.
This relative consensus, however, runs the risk of experiencing a clash on more technical or legal questions, particularly those relating to data ownership or liability (see other article).
A definition... still in need of further defining
The free flow of data is one of the Estonian Presidency of the Council of the EU’s digital priorities. Estonia is, however, approaching this principle in a relatively broad way and on in which involves three different principles: removing unjustified localisation obligations (national level); the use of the “only once” principle, according to which a business or citizen only has to provide his/her data to the public authorities (public sector) once and; access, reuse and portability of data (private sector).
After many months of consultation that sought to obtain the support of the most reticent member states, such as France, the European Commission has decided to adopt a more limited definition of the free movement of data and to proceed to an approach in different phases. It is expected to propose a legislative proposal in the autumn, which will tackle unjustified localisation obligations and the possibility for businesses to change cloud computing services (“cloud switch”). Next year it will also seek to deal with emerging issues relating to liability in cases of damages caused by a connected object or data ownership.
Work still required on exceptions
During their exchange of views, ministers appeared to be relatively in agreement on the eradication of data localisation obligations but they did not tackle the question of possible derogations to this principle.
In reply to question posed by EUROPE, the Slovenian minister in charge of public administration, Boris Koprivnikar, who is also a supporter of the free movement of data, expressed his concerns that these derogations could be misused, “if there are too many exceptions in the legislative framework, there will be no common traffic”.
Germany did not speak during the discussions but did inform EUROPE that it would remain on the alert. The German Secretary of State, Mathias Machnig, explained, “We agree on being ‘open’ but we need clear rules. What data can be used and what is the meaning of this use when it comes to developing competition”.
More questions than answers
According to the information we have received, the informal ministerial meeting did not reach any clear conclusions. It was more of an opportunity for the delegations to put questions to the experts attending, including Alex Pentland from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Paul Hofheinz from the Lisbon Council.
The most controversial emerging questions were tackled. Poland, for example, expressed doubts about the concept of co-ownership of data offered by the Lisbon Council. Spain explained that this dossier would create more questions than answers and warned against possible data misuse.
Alex Pentland responded to the concerns expressed and called on the EU not to miss this opportunity. He believes that government should make a commitment to the free flow of data “and the private sector will follow”. On the previous day, during the conference on the single digital market, he highlighted the importance of data aggregation in an effort to respond to concerns involving the failure of anonymisation (see EUROPE 11831).
Given the complexity of this dossier, many other discussions are expected to follow. The Estonian Presidency is planning another political debate at the Telecommunications Council before the end of the year. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)