Opinions can be incorrect (in our opinion)! On data protection law’s accuracy principle

Abstract

on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ 2016 L 119/1, Article 5(1)(d).

Why accuracy needs further exploration in data protection

“…-Accuracy and its elaboration as a concept seem not to have been particularly addressed in EU legal studies [1]. Some have observed that the principle of accuracy would be a 'crocodile of data protection' [2] for its antiquity. As the crocodile in the animal kingdom, the principle saw few content-related changes over its evolution in data protection law (id.).…”

“…First, it is a substantive norm requiring personal data to be accurate, and where necessary, up to date (Article 5(1)(d) GDPR). Second, the "accuracy principle functions as instrumental of other data protection principles and as an applicability criterion for data subjects' rights" [2] such as the right to rectify inaccurate personal data and the right to object to the processing of inaccurate personal data (Dimitrova [1] in this regard, wrote about 'accuracy as an enabler of the right to rectification').…”

“…Authors distinguish between factual and non-factual data [1] [6] or 'factual data' and 'predictive data'). Hallinan and Borgesius [2] argue that 'personal data opinions' should be considered as personal data to which accuracy requirements would apply (contra: [24]). Moreover, if accuracy applies to opinions relating to an individual, human-generated opinions by medical professionals should be considered as such [25] and hypothetically, enforcing data subjects' rights (including the right to access and rectify medical opinions), should be possible for such opinions.…”

“…Moreover, if accuracy applies to opinions relating to an individual, human-generated opinions by medical professionals should be considered as such [25] and hypothetically, enforcing data subjects' rights (including the right to access and rectify medical opinions), should be possible for such opinions. However, it appears that further research would be needed for the applicability of these rights to medical opinions, as well as to the likely different manifestations of these rights in EU jurisdictions [2].…”

Building A Corporate Corpus For Threads Constitution

“…Personal data protection concerns have been elicited since 1970 Hallinan and Zuiderveen Borgesius (2020), with Ann Cavoukain, the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, co-author of the 1995 international report on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET) acting as a forerunner in the domain of data privacy in any technological design. Cavoukian (2010) further clarified that "the future of privacy cannot be assured solely by compliance with regulatory frameworks; rather, privacy assurance must ideally become an organization's default mode of operation".…”