Let’s try to look at some phenomena not necessarily consistent with each other, not apparently at least:
– EU, launches, more or less simultaneously, rules for privacy and for cyber security;
– The European Court cancels the Safe Harbour Agreement by replacing de facto the need to manage data and information within EU;
– The recent dispute with Microsoft creates a precedent with direct and precise business and operational impacts on the management of information by companies subjected to US jurisdiction but operating also in Europe;
– Player US companies handling large amounts of data “as a service” from US announced after a long negative period profit outlook in Europe;
– Single countries close to the EU increase the level of control on the privacy and security of data by inserting control obligations at the national level (for example, Switzerland and Russia, but also France and Belgium after the recent tragic events in Paris);
– The needs of intelligence seem to put security and privacy almost in contrast (information security, in statements of intent of the authorities, is a fundamental systemic asset with respect to privacy which maintains a value of individual rights).
Is there is a common factor, in addition to the obvious need to protect the individual, national and supra-national environments and the pressing needs of defence control?
A few random thoughts:
- Technological change tends to radically separate business needs and data access needs: from the old tokens to blockchain the need to read sensitive information actually tends to decrease (do not be deceived by the social media);
- The commercial solutions trace behaviours of clusters rather than individuals, the protection of individual rights is increasingly correlated with mere information security (let’s avoid socio – anthropological discussions in order to understand the asymmetry between the right and its effective exercise, in this case social media adoption could be a useful key of interpretation);
- National control is returning to a seemingly archaic situation (old protectionism) but actually functional to the main purpose: the national controls do not prevent or contradict the supranational policies but facilitate and integrate monitoring models (let’s consider multicurrency eCommerce, mechanisms of Forex, SEPA and the CorssBorder) and the criteria of national delegation in terms of operational performance of the logic of supranational protection;
- The dynamics of intelligence enables the creation of a gear multiplication: wide dissemination of trade and strong protection of individual information, obviously favouring the control strategy but, in fact, protecting the practice of supranational cooperation in protected environments (let’s consider eCommerce and monitoring mechanisms built in controlled areas like EU than in the far west of other areas of the world).
But it is better to investigate further later on…