See World Economic Forum, Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development (2012). Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TC_MFS_BigDataBigImpact_Briefing_2012.pdf.
For example, police in Santa Cruz in California uses predictive analytics on burglary data to identify streets at greatest risk. Singapore police, instead, combine advanced analytical capabilities with existing video monitoring systems to ensure safety in the city (Daly et al., 2013). In Europe, predictive analytics is becoming fashionable, too. The Kent Police Force in the UK has tested a strategy in which analytics software is used to ascertain areas in which crime is more likely to occur, using several years of crime data.
The first data protection law in Europe was adopted in Hessen, Germany, on September 30, 1970 in the Hesse Data Protection Act or Hessisches Datenschutzgesetz, whereas the first national data protection act was passed in Sweden in 1973 (see Burkert, 2000).
For example, in the UK information gathering for law enforcement in terms of interception received a statutory regulation in 1985 with adoption of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Before this act, the Secretary of State issued warrants for interception but there were no legal consequences if a warrant was not obtained. The 1985 Act was introduced after the European Court of Human Rights ruling in Malone vs UK in 1984 (for more information, see: http://www.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/documents/2011/KlugIntercepComms.pdf).
Source: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/legislative_framework/l24120_en.htm.
In January 2012, a revision process of both the Data Protection Directive and the Framework Decision started. The directive should be replaced by a regulation, whereas the Framework Decision should be replaced by a binding directive.
An important example of institutionalized cross-border cooperation by exchange of nationally held data is Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping-up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (Prüm Decision), which incorporated the Prüm Treaty into EU law in 2008. The aim of the Prüm Decision was to help member states improve information sharing for the purpose of preventing and combating crime in three fields: terrorism, cross-border crime, and illegal migration. For this purpose, the decision sets out provisions with regard to automated access to DNA profiles, fingerprint data, and certain national vehicle registration data, the supply of data in relation to major events that have a cross-border dimension, as well as the supply of information to prevent terrorist offences and other measures for stepping up cross-border police cooperation. The databases that are made available under the Prüm Decision are governed entirely by national law, but the exchange of data is also governed by the decision and the Data Protection Framework Decision.
Signed already with the Nice Treaty in 2000, but legally binding only after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (Holzacker and Luif, 2014).
The Charter includes all the rights found in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU; other rights and principles resulting from the common constitutional traditions of EU countries and other international instruments; and the rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; e.g., the Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to private life, under Article 8 (see: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm).
10 Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Council of Europe Treaties 108 (01/1981). Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/108.htm. Although the European Union is not a party to Convention 108, its rights are applicable for different reasons (Bignami, 2007, pp. 241–242).
11 Handbook on European Data Protection Law, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handbook_data_protection_ENG.pdf.
12 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf.
13 The right to have your data erased is not absolute and has clear limits. It only applies where personal data storage is no longer necessary or is irrelevant for the original purposes of the processing for which the data were collected (Liscka and Stöcker, Friday January 18, 2013).
14 European Commission MEMO 14–186; see http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_it.htm.
15 “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data.” (Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012PC0010&from=en).
16 From the beginning, proposal prevention was eliminated, whereas serious crime is intended as defined in every single national law (Holzacker and Luif, 2014).
17 This Working Party was set up under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC. It is an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy. Its tasks are described in Article 30 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC.
18 Press Release available at: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf.
19 Personal data includes name, surname, marital status, income, illnesses or diseases, workplace, and preferences and opinions. According to the definition of personal data given in the Directive and in the Italian Code, information can be either objective (e.g., the presence of a certain substance in the blood) or subjective (e.g., opinions, preferences).
20 Constitutional Reform was approved by law n. 3/2001involving the relationship between central and peripheral administrations.
21 Public security can be defined as the activity that allows individuals to live in the community and act within it, showing their own individuality and to satisfy their interests. Traditionally and legislation-wise, public security is associated with the concept of public order, meaning the material public order that is the specific goods which are to be protected. In this sense, public order and public security are equivalent concepts.
22 The newest version of the SIS, or SIS II, came into operation on April 9, 2013. It now serves all EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Europol and Eurojust also have access to SIS II. SIS II consists of a central system (C-SIS), a national system (N-SIS) in each member state, and a communication infrastructure between the central system and the national systems. The C-SIS contains certain data entered by the member states on persons and objects. The C-SIS is used by national border control, police, customs, and visa and judicial authorities throughout the Schengen area. Each of the member states operates a national copy of the C-SIS, known as N-SIS, which is constantly updated, thereby updating the C-SIS.
23 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, (2010), “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union.” Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/com_2010_609_en.pdf.
24 The full report and summaries are available from: http://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/3192876.
25 Further information can be retrieved from: http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2013-11-01/milano-come-funziona-software-sventa-rapine-064317.shtml?uuid=ABZ9pka.
26 See Italian Government release, available at: http://www.governo.it/Presidenza/Comunicati/dettaglio.asp?d=73621.