 |
|
 |
|
Name: Tanguy
Family Name: Van Overstraeten
Affiliation: Partner and Global Head of Privacy, Linklaters LLP
Personal web-site: www.linklaters.com
Short BIO
Listed among Belgian leading individuals in Communications & IT (Chambers Global 2007), Tanguy is the Global Head of the Privacy Practice of Linklaters and the Head of the Technology Media & Telecommunication (TMT) Group in Belgium. Having studied law at the University of Brussels (ULB, 1987) and the University of Chicago (LLM 1991), he has developed a thorough practice in the field of information technology contracts and regulatory, focusing on data protection projects, international telecommunications as well as outsourcing. Tanguy is a member of the Digital Economy Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union and Vice-Chair of the ICT Committee of the British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium. He regularly contributes in conferences related to data protection and is also teaching privacy laws at the Solvay Business School (University of Brussels, Belgium). He is also country correspondent of the Computer and Telecommunications Law Review (CTLR).
Abstract
What was on the Law Firms' agenda in 2008? The least one can say is that they have been increasingly busy in data protection-related areas encompassing all aspects of information governance. When thinking back about the key work handled during the past year, two words come to the mind: transfer and monitoring. There is no doubt indeed that many data protection issues boil down to either (in)validation of cross-border data transfers or legal extent of data monitoring.
In the first case, the globalisation of the economy makes it absolutely crucial to enable large corporations to share data and transfer them all over the world. Technologies enable it but what about the law? How to reconcile the legal environment which is largely set out locally (each country adopting its own rules even when transposing a directive, as is the case in the European Economic Area) with transnational activities and technologies? Are BCRs (binding corporate rules) the definitive answer?
On the monitoring front, many companies are genuinely willing to make sure their employees are making a legal and appropriate use of the technology at their (professional) disposal. How can their monitoring of such use be compatible with their employees' legitimate right for privacy? Likewise, in an increasingly threatening environment, governments are facing terrorist attacks and develop more and more intrusive techniques to fight against their authors. How to tackle the dilemma between rules enabling these intrusions in one country and rules protecting privacy in another? The SWIFT case - one if not the most prominent case of 2008 - is obviously a striking illustration of these contradictions.
Some law firms massively contributed in addressing and proposing solutions to the above issues in 2008.
On-line publications
Data transfer issues regarding outsourcing/offshoring
http://88.208.217.135/guidance/Tanguy_Van_Overstraeten_DataTransfer_Belgium.html
Internet and e-mails monitoring at work
http://88.208.217.135/guidance/Tanguy_Van_Overstraeten_Monitoring_At_Work.html
CPDP Conference Who is Who
