Our friends from SecNews attended the Special Interest Workshop titled «Modern Privacy - Searches and Developments» which was earlier today at Legal Library (Europe Hall) and involving remarkable and well-known scientists, mostly lawyers, as well as executives of the Personal Data Protection Authority (APIS). Among them were and Mr. Marinos Papadopoulos, lawyer, specialized in Law.
Mr. Marinos Papadopoulos, creator of the Greek edition of Creative Commons licenses for the use of intellectual property projects on the internet and founding member of Open Knowledge Foundation Greece, talks to Google about Google's highly anticipated product, Google Glass - Google's Hi-Tech Glasses, and criticizes the concerns of some Data Protection Authorities to express concern about this company in relation to Glass's risk of protecting personal data.
The well-known lawyer in computer-related assumptions-some of whom have been extensively involved in the media in view of their peculiarity and widespread interest-gave SecNews EXCLUSIVE the following interview.
Q: Mr. Papadopoule, the topic of your presentation was of particular interest, especially in view of the Conference on developments in the protection of personal data. I would say that the title of this presentation seemed unusual and unconventional for the data conference of lawyers and lawyers. What is this for?
A: The title of this presentation comes from the phrase of Menander, Athenian comedian and poet 4th BC century, "Oxys theon ochtalmos es to panth' oran" which translates as "the eye of the gods is sharp in seeing everything". The presentation had a title drawn up as a paraphrase of this sentence of Menander's with a mixture of the words Google and Glass. I am sure that Menandros would agree with the paraphrase, even more so if he had the opportunity to wear the Google glasses. Google Glass is a "divine" product compared to the data of IT technology to date, gradually introducing us to a new category of computing devices, that of wearable computers. Being used to laptops, tablets, and even these cell phones phones, Google innovates by introducing consumers to wearable computing with Glass. I would dare to say that the company "puts glasses" on its competitors by putting Hi-Tec glasses on users. Already Microsoft—perhaps Google's biggest competitor—has its own Hi-Tec glasses in the works, expected to hit the market in 2014. Google's Glass combined with a portable electronic device and the Internet can offer unprecedented experiences to consumers and I am sure that many others will follow the company's example by creating more and more wearable devices. Of course, what is of particular legal interest is whether Google's Glass will create issues regarding the protection of personal or sensitive data, either of its users or of third parties.
Q: Was that why the company accepted the letter of the Personal Data Protection Authorities that you referred to in your statement?
A: Obviously! However, this reason alone does not justify the study of the Data Protection Authorities in their communication with Google for Glass. It is well known that Google has often been concerned with the national authorities for the protection of personal data. Anyone who is innovating without being vacant runs the risk of being at the heart of the authorities' interest, including those responsible for personal data protection.
Q.: But it is not reasonable and expected to have the questions that they put to Google the Authorities for the Protection of Personal Data with respect to the Glass;
A: As I said in my introduction, the questions raised to Google in their letter of June 18, 2013 are all reasonable and expected. My criticism focuses both on these questions and mainly on the time when these were raised by the authorities at Google, that is, at a time when the company was reasonably and expectedly preparing the Glass product with utmost secrecy and safeguarding its industrial secrecy in view of competition but also due to the uniqueness and innovation of the product. I was particularly impressed by the fact that through this letter, the signatory representatives of the Authorities were asking Larry Page, CEO of Google, to actually reveal the secrets of Glass to them, even before the product was released to the market. It seemed to me at least naïve—not to say stupid—to expect the signatories of the letter in question to expect Larry Page to respond by disclosing the Glass data to allay their fears or concerns about the product's alleged unsuitability for protection. of personal data.
Q. Did the authorities send the letter to 18?th June with the aim of intervening before it Glass put on the market by shaping its characteristics so that it can be produced as a product that will not endanger the protection of personal data?
Answer: There is no such case regarding the letter in question, I am categorical about it. I do not believe that the undersigned DPAs intended to interfere with the design of Glass prior to its final production, although I have seen such interference occur or creep in with regard to the protection of intellectual property in Internet. That is, I have seen individuals or legal entities exert pressure through legal means or lobbying against providers of software suitable for file sharing with the aim of imposing an "alternative design" on Peer-2-Peer software providers so that the software ultimately be suitable for full compliance with court orders to disclose information regarding the sources and distribution network of intellectual property works that may be illegally shared in the future using the P2P software. Such is the case with BitTorrent software. In the case in question, the reason for intervention by the lobbyists for the protection of the interests of the major recording or film companies and collective management organizations had reached such a point of absurdity that they essentially demanded a "judicial approval" - a preventive judicial control - for the how a file sharing technology will be shaped. However, this essentially constitutes an impermissible preventive censorship of freedom of expression and software development and by extension technological development, and as such is outside the law in a democratic society. Returning to the case of Glass and the letter of 18th June, I would tell you that this can be interpreted at least as an expression of technophobic behavior of the Authorities for the protection of personal data in view of Google's track-record in this regard. Of course, the authorities in question ignore or do not take into account the range and number of innovations in our lives that have been implemented thanks to Google, but are only interested in their own "snuff box". The technophoric behavior of the Authorities—to be more specific, of certain representatives of said Authorities—is not consistent with the institutional role of these Authorities in our modern and technologically advanced society. The technophobic perception has always been an inhibiting product of promotion to the extent that the technological revolution of information technology and communications can promote our social, everyday becoming. And unfortunately it is very common for technophobic behavior to be expressed through the Data Protection Authorities. See the example of the Greek Authority.
Q: Is the Hellenic AIDCP a technophobic one?
A: If I judge from what it has done so far in relation to various technological developments, I would tell you that it is not only technophobic, but also effective in imposing the technophobic perception on state bodies. See the case of cameras. As a result of the APDPH's obsession where there should be cameras, they do not exist, but also vice versa, that is, where there should not be cameras, they are.
Q: Well, do I not control cases of illegal camera use by the APIS?
A: They should be controlled, and many are indeed controlled. But policing should also be facilitated by the use of cameras there and in cases where the APDPH has banned cameras. As, also, one should point out those cases where the APDPH is inactive in its control authority for cameras that are there where they shouldn't be. I am mainly referring to cases of camera operation by individuals in violation of the law. I am referring to a typical case that I am handling as a lawyer and which is ongoing in the courts and also before the APDPH where the complainant was an employee dismissed because he reacted to the video recording and recording of employees even in the kitchen area at his workplace, when he reported the fact to the APDPH and he asked for her assistance, she answered through the legal auditor that she would call his employer to ask her if the complaint was true. The only answer given to the worker's complaint is that this answer by the legal practitioner of the AIDCP is stupid if one thinks it well. That is, what did the legal counselor expect to answer to her employer who dismissed her employee because he responded to his illegal video when he asked her the telephone question? Will it be answered by the phone-controlled "Of course, do we use cameras even in the kitchen, do you see to have them treat you and coffee by recording your visit"? Is a phone call made by AIDCP? It can not be done! What does this particular legal auditor think APDPH, a telephone polling company, is? And yet, the legal auditor of the APDPH stated that she is otherwise unable to check the complained company, or not only by phone... I would not like to talk to you, in the context of this interview, about the inaction of another legal auditor of the APDPH in cases involving the panhellenic in which I was a lawyer and which were introduced to the APDPH beyond the courts. Cases such as that of Demosthenes Liakopoulos, the well-known broadcaster who has been appealing to the AIDCP since February of 2009, and the law enforcement officer of the Authority that has taken charge of the case have not done the slightest since. He did not even have the professional knowledge of informing in writing the citizen who had appealed to the AIDCP about the fate of his case or not only that he had been given the case. Or other cases in which I was not the lawyer of the litigant, but I happen to know persons and things, such as the case of the Army soldier Constantinos Harisis who was admitted to the APDPH and was taken over by the same legal auditor who, however, also did absolutely nothing here and years for her. As far as I know, the Recruiter who was relentlessly dragged by the media, who was prematurely discharged from his service, was vindicated in all the courts, military court and Supreme Court, and was reinstated—however, the APDPH and the particular legal auditor did not find time to deal with it with him, even though the TV channels made the officer north in the hunt for ratings. This particular legal auditor is the same one who wrote the case of Demosthenes Liakopoulos on her old shoes—she probably also wrote Stratologus on them! Of course, it's strange how she finds time to run from conference to conference or circulate her authority from committee to committee, while she doesn't find time to deal with her professional obligations as a legal auditor at the APDPH.
Q: All of this sounds surreal to me, a reality that I would like to be virtual and not real regarding the APDPH. With reference to Google Glass do you think there could be involvement in the traffic or its use by the AIDCP?
Answer: First of all, let me tell you that to me all of this looks and sounds exactly what it is, that is, unacceptable for the APDPH whose existence and operation is paid for by the Greek taxpayers. From then on, it is a matter of the Authority in question to find the end of the thread in what is badly burning within it or what is happening with each legal auditor or any of its executives who behaves either unlawfully or insufficiently for what he was assigned and paid for. If I were a member of the Board of Directors of the APDPH I would not accept any legal auditor who is inadequate for her main duties or deficient in the field of action of her competence. Not much, probably if there is even talk about it in the media or an investigator is or was involved in it. For the rest, regarding Glass, I would first of all tell you that it is positive that the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data is not among those whose representatives signed the stupid—in my opinion—letter of 18th June 2013. I personally know executives and members of APDPX and I would tell you with complete certainty that they are prestigious scientists, distinguished, and of known ability. Now, as to the fate of Glass in relation to the potential of the APDPH, I judge that no one can be a fortune teller. Even if personal data is breached from using Glass, it doesn't mean Google is to blame for it. If you kill someone by driving your car recklessly, does that mean that the manufacturer is at fault because you are not driving properly? Or does it mean that the safety specifications of your vehicle can eliminate the possibility of your driving carelessness? I expect that in the near future wearable technology will invade our lives for good. To date, we have not set standards for it, simply because we are not used to it. However, in order to see what will happen with it, we should think about it using it and not express ourselves about it technophobically or otherwise. I hope and wish that APDPH will contribute positively to the topic of wearable technology and personal data protection. Of course, this will be proven in practice and the Greek Authority will put the glasses on its bonds internationally on the occasion of Google's "glasses".
Q: Thank you, Mr Papadopoule for this interview.
Answer: Thank you too. I often read the publications via SecNews and I assure you that I always find the relevant analyzes in it to be accurate and valid. The field of security of online systems and applications, especially in the era of cloud computing computing—acquires significant interest and importance for everyone. In this field there is a brilliant field of glory, although not everyone who deals with this field has the talent or the appropriate entrepreneurship to develop or sustain business actions and applications about internet security.
---
For Mr Marinos Papadopoulos:
Mr. Marinos Papadopoulos, a lawyer registered with the Athens Bar Association since 1996, is a PhD candidate at the Law School of the University of Athens in the field of intellectual property on the internet with a focus on Openness. He is a graduate of the Law School of the University of Athens and holds a Master of Science degree in Corporate Communication—Business Public Relations from Boston University. He also has postgraduate studies at Harvard University, Stanford University σε issues Νομικής Πληροφορικής, και George Washington University σε αντικείμενα Management. Έχει συμμετοχή σε διεθνή fora με αντικείμενο θέματα Νομικής Πληροφορικής (Πληροφορικής Τεχνολογίας και Νομικής Επιστήμης), Κοινωνίας της Πληροφορίας και Ψηφιακής Στρατηγικής. Υπήρξε επικεφαλής νομικός (Legal Lead) δημιουργός των αδειών Creative Commons στην Ελλάδα, και είναι ιδρυτικό μέλος του Ιδρύματος Ανοικτής Γνώσης Ελλάδας (Open Knowledge Foundation Greece). Έχει πλούσια εμπειρία ως ειδικός επιστημονικός και νομικός σύμβουλος σε έργα καινοτομίας χρηματοδοτούμενα από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή υλοποιούμενα στην Ελλάδα και το εξωτερικό. Το συγγραφικό του έργο περιλαμβάνει πληθώρα επιστημονικών άρθρων και δημοσιεύσεις σε πανεπιστημιακές και επιστημονικές εκδόσεις Ελλάδας, ΗΠΑ, Μεγάλης Βρεττανίας, και Ινδίας.
It is worth noting that Mr. Papadopoulos is one of the most prestigious Greek lawyers, specialized in law-making. It is a very encouraging and impressive fact for Greek legislation, to have reputable lawyers with the highest degree of training and a modern understanding of the latest technological data that will clarify the "gray" points of the internet many times. This is particularly important, since there must definitely be changes to the existing legislative framework on both data protection and crime prevention, such as child pornography, where the law must be particularly tough. But we have to confess that the legislative framework in our country is on the right track especially with the adoption of high penalties in cases such as child pornography. Greek judges need to have a modern understanding of its internet law in response to the growing electronic crime and the diversity it has.
SecNews wishes to congratulate Mr. Papadopoulos on his speech but also to thank him for conceding the highly interesting and analytical interview.
