CPDP2016 will stage more than 60 panels and workshops with a stimulating mix of academics, practitioners, regulators and advocates, as well as multiple side events such as open debates, PechaKucha performances and artistic interventions. Please note that this is a preliminary version of the program which is still in its early stages. Accordingly, some panels may change or be rescheduled.

Thursday 28 january 2016 • LA CAVE


academic •• policy •• business ••

organised by CPDP

Chair Gloria Gonzalez Fuster, VUB (BE)

Moderator Jennifer Baker, The Register (UK)

Panel Renata Avila, Worldwide Web Foundation (GT), Belma Kucukalic, One World Platform (BA), Cheryl Miller, Digital Leadership Institute (BE), Jillian York, Electronic Frontiers Foundation (US)

An almost perfectly balanced field: According to the latest survey data, the professional field of privacy and personal data protection is surprisingly mixed, and possibly even female-friendly. Zoom out, however, and the picture looks less rosy. Women and girls are still too often victims of sexist attacks online, and the technology industry - as well as traditionally privacy-invasive fields like surveillance and security - are predominantly male, while the policy and research agendas still give very little attention to women-specific constraints and affordances, or to how they experience the enjoyment of their digital rights (if any). This raises the question of whether digital citizenship is equal and unprejudiced, in theory and practice. This panel will debate the following questions:

  • Do privacy and personal data protection effectively ensure women’s digital rights?
  • Do privacy and personal data protection ignore or even endanger women’s digital rights?
  • How can women’s rights to control states of access online be ensured?
  • What are the existing strategies to protect women’s digital rights and what is still needed?

10.00 - Coffee break


academic •• policy •• business ••

organised by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology

Chair Christopher Kuner, VUB-Brussels Privacy Hub (BE)

Moderator David Hoffman, Intel (US)

Panel Susanne Augenhofer, Humboldt-University Berlin (DE), Kenneth Bamberger, University of California (US), Chris Hoofnagle, School of Information, UC Berkeley (US), Peter Hustinx, Former European Data Protection Supervisor (EU)

Regulatory choices have profound, yet sometimes counterintuitive effects on the information practices that emerge “on the ground.” Consumer protection and privacy advocates often want to create complex, highly prescriptive rules. Yet, rule-bound approaches may create a compliance mindset, leaving little room for privacy leadership, and limiting attention to emerging privacy risks. This panel takes up the debate over regulatory choices through the lens of the GDPR and two recent books by US academics. Insights from studies of corporate practices in five different countries and an examination of the FTC’s privacy work will frame a panel discussion about legislative and regulatory choices as the EU attempts to harmonize protection across diverse legal and cultural environments. In particular, the panel will consider the following questions:

  • What can regulators do to motivate corporate attention to new privacy risks?
  • What forms of transparency motivate the adoption of better privacy practices?
  • How well can the FTC protect Europeans’ rights under data transfer agreements?
  • What is the potential - and the limits - of FTC privacy enforcement?


academic ••• policy •• business •

organised by TU Berlin

Chair Cristopher Docksey, EDPS (EU)

Moderator Philipp Offermann, TU Berlin (DE)

Panel Pia Eberhardt, Corporate Europe Observatory (BE), Leon Hempel, TU Berlin (DE), Dagmar Hovestädt, Federal Commission for the Stasi Records (DE), Annie Machon, MI5 Whistleblower (UK)

Secrecy is an old, and almost universal desire, for those who rule. To be in possession and control of knowledge that is not available to others might well be a mode of ruling already. Such secrets can be described as visibility regimes that produce a power imbalance that is routinely evoked in matters of security, economy, and other contemporary practices of government. The panel asks how secrecy can work as a legitimate technology of governance in democratic societies on both an individual and state level. It will explore the theoretical basis of secrecy and modern statehood and consider the real results of these practices - for example in terms of secret services, the materiality of secrecy manifest in the archives of the GDRs Ministry for State Security, and the clandestine role of investorstate dispute settlements (ISDS) in free-trade negotiations. Amongst others, the panel will consider the following questions:

  • How does the secrecy of international negotiation for trade agreements affect statehood in general?
  • How is the accesability of the Stasi archives treated by other states in the international community?
  • What is the role of whistleblowers in secret services, and how is whistleblowing handled by the affected states?

13.00 - Lunch


academic •• policy •• business ••

organised by Forum Privatheit

Chair Brent Mittelstadt, Oxford Internet Institute (UK)

Moderator Tobias Matzner, University of Tübingen (DE)

Panel Ero Balsa, KU Leuven (BE), Katleen Gabriels, VUB (BE), Hille Koskela, University of Turku (FI), Carsten Ochs, University of Kassel (DE)

More and more everyday objects are becoming ‘smart’ and are weaved into the Internet of Things. Users, however, often do not notice that that their TV is no longer just a TV, because system design is pushing interconnected functionality into the background and fosters a ‘user illusion’. This creates substantial risks for privacy. Consequently, there are claims for a right to network-free or ‘offline’ alternatives - in particular for technologies that have been working without data connectivity for a long time. Such offline products promise the absence of control, but also the absence of a public sphere and the possibility to avoid the demands of an omnipresent digital network. In this way they fulfill the right not to communicate. However, claiming a network-free alternative may also be considered selfish or antisocial since many networked technologies have been introduced for the benefit of society rather than the individual. The panel will address the advantages and problems of a right to offline alternatives. It will discuss regulatory perspectives that could enable, or oppose, such a right well as the potential for technological problems and solutions. In particular, the panel will consider the following questions:

  • Is there/should there be a right to remain offline?
  • How do individual needs for privacy and social needs for information compare?
  • Is the desire to remain offline just an expression of a lack of alternatives in using networked IT?

15.15 - Coffee break

15.30 - Buckle-Up: Connected cars could face privacy bumps in the road ahead

academic • policy ••• business ••

organised by CPDP

Chair Lucas Melgaço, VUB-LSTS (BE)

Moderator Wout van Wijk, Huawei (CN)

Panel Isabelle Chatelier, EDPS (EU), Simon Hania, TomTom (NL), Brigitte Lonc, Renault (FR), Maurice Schellekens, Tilburg University-TILT (NL), Panagiotis Papadimitratos, KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)

Connected cars may soon be another prominent part of the Internet of Things - with millions of vehicles being connected to the cloud and to each other. As consumers demand more personalized services and smarter, safer, and more seamless in-car features, the volume of data generated by sensors and devices will increase. Accordingly, modern cars turn into mobile data centers - connected, clever and self-enabled. As they record almost every aspect of our journeys and driving behaviour, interacting with our smartphone apps and sat-nav systems, questions arise as to who will control all this data and how will it be used? In turn, questions arise as to how privacy can effectively be protected? In this panel, we will explore new technologies in the automobile industry and their risks for the privacy of individuals, and demonstrate best practices and solutions for ensuring compliance and transparency.

  • What are the latest technology trends in the automobile industry?
  • How can future self-driving, self-socializing and self-learning vehicles be enabled by the utilization of personal data without compromising the rights of data subjects?
  • Is the industry’s recent adoption of voluntary Privacy Principles enough to address the challenges of the upcoming Internet of Things?
  • How can new business models and data protection live in harmony together?


academic •• policy •• business ••

organised by the Data Transparency Lab

Chair Marc Vael, ISACA (BE)

Moderator Nikolaos Laoutaris, Data Transparency Lab (ES)

Panel Krishna Gummadi, Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (DE), Hammed Haddadi, Queen Mary University of London (UK), Karolina Mojzesowicz, European Comission (EU), Cathy O’Neil, mathbabe.org (US)

With new online privacy regulations coming into force, proving privacy violations has become an increasingly relevant challenge that must be addressed.

Technologists are currently researching and developing tools with the potential to upgrade privacy regulation by scientifically measuring and analyzing the use of our personal data by online products and services.

This session will address existing and future ways in which research tools can support policy-making and the enforcement of personal data privacy and transparency norms, thereby enabling evidence-based discussions. The goal is to discuss transversal opportunities across computer science, technology design, policymaking and legal practise. Some of the questions to be addressed by this panel include:

  • What information is needed to make sure that privacy laws are respected?
  • How much information is required as initial evidence and how much as definite proof of a breach?
  • Who will/should be responsible for collecting this information?
  • Do end users have the capacity to do this on their own or should there be a specialized watchdog tasked with monitoring data protection violations?


SPonsors AND PARTNERS 2017