Hylly
Henkilönnimi Podszun, Rupprecht, kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Should Gatekeepers Be Allowed to Combine Data? Ideas for Art. 5(a) of the Draft Digital Markets Act
Julkaistu Verlag C.H. Beck, München : 2022.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa GRUR International, ISSN 2632-8623 ; 71(3)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Should digital gatekeepers be allowed to gather data from users and combine data from different sources? That is one of the key substantive questions of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). It is currently addressed in Art. 5(a) of the draft DMA. There are two problems with the current wording: first, it is not specific enough to work as a self-executable provision; secondly, it could happen that users are nudged into giving consent easily so that the gatekeepers can continue to expand their sets of personal data, without users having a ‘real’ say and with third parties losing out in competition. In this contribution, I analyse this problem. My suggestion is to resort to a ‘rating solution’: qualified entities, e.g. trusted data intermediaries, should rate, certify or label the data options offered by the gatekeepers and serve as ‘data guides’ for consumers. I also look at other policy options.
Asiasana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke GRUR International, 2632-8623 ; 71(3)
*000 ab a ar
*00117132
*008 s2022||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*1001 $aPodszun, Rupprecht,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aShould Gatekeepers Be Allowed to Combine Data? Ideas for Art. 5(a) of the Draft Digital Markets Act /$cRupprecht Podszun.
*264 1$aMünchen :$bVerlag C.H. Beck,$c2022.
*300 $as. 197-205
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v71(3)
*520 $aShould digital gatekeepers be allowed to gather data from users and combine data from different sources? That is one of the key substantive questions of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). It is currently addressed in Art. 5(a) of the draft DMA. There are two problems with the current wording: first, it is not specific enough to work as a self-executable provision; secondly, it could happen that users are nudged into giving consent easily so that the gatekeepers can continue to expand their sets of personal data, without users having a ‘real’ say and with third parties losing out in competition. In this contribution, I analyse this problem. My suggestion is to resort to a ‘rating solution’: qualified entities, e.g. trusted data intermediaries, should rate, certify or label the data options offered by the gatekeepers and serve as ‘data guides’ for consumers. I also look at other policy options.
*650 7$adigital isaatio$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p8692
*650 7$adata$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p27250$2yso/fin
*650 7$atietosuoja$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3636$2yso/fin
*650 7$ahenkilötiedot$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p15126
*653 $aDigital Markets Act (DMA)
*653 $adigimarkkinasäädös
*830 0$aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v71(3)
*852 $hSA-GRUR International
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.