This AG Opinion in a pending CJEU case about the tensions between GDPR and journalists' rights to access court records is pretty amazing.…
It's full of things like "[in] an administrative law dispute between Z (‘Citizen Z’) and the Mayor of Utrecht (‘Mayor M’)... X (‘Lawyer X’) acted as Citizen Z’s representative."
Reading it, I wondered if the AG was deliberately making things sound as Kafkaesque as possible.
And it turns out the AG -- a respected legal expert working for one of the most important EU institutions -- really WAS trying to sound like Kafka. Check out this footnote!
I think I'm in love. 🥰🥰🥰
The AG's observations about the logic of data protection expanding indefinitely to swallow up other human and societal concerns are fierce. I kept having to use new highlighting colors to capture how 🔥🔥🔥 this Opinion is.
And as he points out, if data protection constraints really do cover basically every normal human discussion about other humans, the law becomes something everyone ignores. It's the same problem Jessica Litman wrote about with copyright twenty-five years ago.
The footnotes are where all the best digressions and snarky asides go to die. Or to live on! Here's AG Bobek speculating on how to justify gossiping in a pub about a rumor he received via email.
And then there's footnote 50.
His bottom line message is a compelling one for judges: Rejecting my argument would mean giving up your own judicial independence and authority. (Handing it to DPAs, in this case.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Daphne Keller

Daphne Keller Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @daphnehk

14 Oct
Some initial thoughts on this "JAMA" bill repealing 230 immunities for algorithmically targeted content.…
It's odd to me that the bill targets *personalized* ranking but not general engagement-based ranking. If the problem is that ranking is personalized, you would think the legislative fix lies in privacy rights rather than changing a content law like CDA 230. 1/
As usual, the kind of prohibited ranking sweeps very broadly, and would seem to discourage platforms from making beneficial ranking changes in response to e.g. coordinated inauthentic behavior. (Maybe the idea is to address that by covering only personalized ranking?) 2/
Read 12 tweets
5 Oct
Some of my favorite responses to the "Facebook Files" coverage, in no particular order. 1/
Hands down winner is @persily with not only a concrete proposal for better research transparency, but actual draft legislation to get it done.…
@Klonick brings calm and sanity, and rightly emphasizes the very serious issues the FB Files reveal for users outside major markets, who are getting a much less safe version of the product.…
Read 7 tweets
17 Sep
There is always a cat-and-mouse game between (1) makers of ranking algorithms and (2) content providers who profit from high rankings.
That background fact should inform every analysis of algorithms and amplification.
Sometimes we call that "spam." Sometimes it's "content farms" or "inauthentic behavior." Sometimes it overlaps with clear societal harms, other times it just degrades service quality. But it is always there, and it always shapes the available choices for platforms and regulators.
Will someone *please* write about this for a policy/news reporter audience? There is literally an entire industry of experts who could easily explain it. SEO conferences and publications like talk about it all the time.
Read 6 tweets
8 Sep
I finally read Øe’s Opinion in the CJEU’s pending case about Article 17 filtering/fundamental rights, and it is amazing. Here comes a long thread about what stood out to me.…
Of course, I don’t like the upshot: Article 17 stands. Øe reconciles that with users' rights by, as @bjjuette and @giuliapriora put it, confining the law in a “tight corset of conditions to safeguard compliance with EU fundamental rights.”…
@bjjuette @giuliapriora (That blog post is a great overall explainer of the issue and the Opinion, BTW, with lots of useful links.)
Read 28 tweets
30 Jul
Something terrible is happening in Canadian Internet law, and the people who care in the rest of the world are mostly stretched too thin to pay attention. We’re counting on people like @mgeist, @EmilyLaidlaw, @tamir_i, and @vivekdotca to somehow fix it. 1/
@mgeist @EmilyLaidlaw @tamir_i @vivekdotca This is a thread listing some of the law’s problems as identified by @mgeist, and flagging a few resources showing the law’s major human rights problems. Others who know of more that might be useful for those working on this in Canada, please add on. 2/
Many of @mgeist's recent posts are about the rushed and secretive lawmaking process. This latest one lays out the current proposals.…
Read 26 tweets
20 Jul
Heads up, people who don’t follow GDPR news: This case is a big deal. It’s basically asking the CJEU to rule that FB’s whole ads system violates the GDPR.
My (very speculative) crystal ball says: Expect a ruling that messes up the ads business model at the margins in ways that sort of track real world privacy values and sort of track how the tech works, but that fall short on both fronts in confusing ways.
No disrespect to the CJEU intended here, BTW. The materials they review often lack any well-developed factual record or amicus/intervenor briefs from independent experts or NGOs to explain key legal issues. And then they have to reach a consensus position. That’s a rough set-up.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!