been published in the so-called Archiefregeling. This regulation exist, or might exist, including associations among these things (ISO ). (Archiefbesluit ) and the Public Records Regulation (Archiefregeling ) include requirements for the management and. retention. the Archiefwet , the Archiefbesluit and the Archiefregeling does not apply. That is important to notice because these laws state.
|Published (Last):||10 November 2012|
|PDF File Size:||16.78 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The EU average is When data is stored on-site, the security risks for business end-users are higher, while at the same time more expensive as well However, as introduced above, stakeholders from both the public and private sectors have called for a new legislative instrument.
Vendor lock-in practices have several economic impacts, as cited in the survey on switching cloud providers 70 and in the responses to the public consultation The landscape of present rules and requirements regarding to research data, for instance in the recently revised Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice and in the regulations applied by research funding bodies.
In line with EU-regional policy objectives to diversify economic activities in rural areas, this is likely to more evenly spread data centre jobs over geographical locations in the European Union. The baseline option would not produce specific impacts on Member States’ public authorities in the intervention area of free flow of data across borders in particular, potential infringement proceedings relating to data localisation restrictions could be dealt with in the context of existing administrative arrangements.
Nevertheless, clarity would be shed on the security provisions on data storage, and contribute to alleviate the lack of trust and the uncertainty.
This Impact Assessment acknowledges the importance of the international dynamic and of current developments around global data flows, their impacts on EU competitiveness and the importance of protecting fundamental rights The upstream market structure cloud service providers would be distorted by the survival of less efficient companies exploiting localisation restrictions in order to be able to maintain higher prices.
High level EU principles could encourage industry-wide initiatives. As regards the intervention area of security of data storage and processing, addressing it by means of additional legislative provisions has been discarded in view of the recent adoption of the NIS Directive and the planned initiative on the EU ICT security certification framework.
This legal patchwork complicates rather than simplifies the matter and does not provide for the robust foundation needed for the emergence of an all-encompassing principle. Regulatory or supervisory authorities or other sector-level institutions can also do this. Although this option would slightly increase the coordination costs for the Member States’ administrations as compared to the previous two options, this cost would be fixed and the effort to establish archiefrege,ing system would be a one-off.
These factors have a direct effect on the choice of location and could result in additional costs for cloud service providers, posing a constraint for the operational efficiency of the industry.
The public consultation confirmed that these other data issues, such as data access, transfer and liability, are more difficult topics and less mature topics that deserve further assessment. The introduction of a legal principle of data portability to facilitate cloud switching, especially when accompanied by guidance and recommendations on the levels of interoperability needed, would force companies to improve the interoperability of their systems.
In view of these difficulties, it is not surprising that no infringement proceedings against data localisation restrictions imposed by Member States have been launched yet. Additionally, the at least equally important problem of market dynamics originating from a lack of knowledge by operators of the correct legal situation concerning data localisation restrictions or on implicit localisation restrictions would be addressed by the awareness raising action foreseen, effectively mitigating legal uncertainty and lack of trust.
The expected impacts of Option 1 on Member States’ public authorities are the same as those of Option 0 for the intervention area security of data processing.
Proliferation of data localisation restrictions could also hamper the development of innovative approaches energy optimisation or efficiency in data centres, e.
The University is required to design selection lists in which at least are shown those archive documents eligible for destruction. The effort put into this by archiefreveling service providers differs considerably from vendor to vendor.
This could be beneficial for SMEs that have lower bargaining power against cloud service providers, and it could incentivise switching by removing uncertainty.
EUR-Lex – SC – EN – EUR-Lex
The GDPR provisions addressing data portability covers only personal data. There would be no administrative burden for Member States in the intervention archiefregeeling of security under this option. The policy intervention also builds upon the Digitising European Industry DEI policy package that included the European Cloud initiative 14 aiming to deploy a high capacity cloud solution for storing, sharing and re-using scientific data. This remains, however, archiefregwling simple discussion forum which is not likely to lead to specific improvements or results.
The Estonian Presidency of the Council has identified the free movement of data as a central priority and a archiefgegeling theme of the upcoming September Tallinn Digital Summit of the Heads of State and government.
Option 1 would slightly reduce the need to deploy infrastructure in environmentally sub-optimal locations and could have a limited positive impact on the environment. As a result of intervention or sometimes: Since, as explained in section 6. Also the comments are from his hand.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
First of all, there is no explicit prohibition in EU law against localisation of non-personal data. The ranges are similar or slightly higher for France. According to the ‘institutional cost estimation’ tool used for the European Electronic Communications Code, this would result in an annual cost of EUR For further details, please refer to Annex 5.
However, if such common security criteria would not be instituted this could in the future lead to burden for Member States authorities as a result of the collective risk this poses to their archiefeegeling. There were zero stakeholders arguing the opposite.
Also, it would largely preserve Member States’ discretion to put in place new data localisation restrictions and maintain the existing ones. For instance, Denmark changed its Bookkeeping Act already in to replace the requirement to obtain an individual authorisation to keep data abroad with archiefreegling functional requirement to provide an online access to Danish supervisory archiefregeping.
However, the competitiveness of all cloud service providers operating in multiple territories would be curtailed by the lack of possibility to benefit from economies of scale. Aspects such as reliability and authenticity are essential.