The Opportunity Report

Delete personal data? Y/N

Normally, the announcement of proposals from the European Commission excite nobody save the right-wing tabloids, however "Regulation on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data” is likely to affect every EU citizen and every business and has been described as the biggest, most impactful piece of legislation that the European Union could produce without developing tax powers.

The proposed law has three objectives:

• to make it easier for companies to do business in Europe;
• to give individuals greater control over their personal information; and
• to give Europeans what has been dubbed the “right to be forgotten”.

The proposal would force all companies to get explicit consent from customers to collect their data, explain how it will be used, and allow users to totally erase their information. Failure to comply could cost a company a fine of up to one million euros or 2% of annual turnover. In part this is already enshrined in existing Data Protection rules but this makes it more explicit.

With each country in the 27-state European Union enforcing its own data protection laws, the legislation would create a single EU law for all nations as well as companies offering services in Europe, even if servers are based overseas. The proposed regulation should make it easier for the relevant national agencies to force organisations to comply with a time limit on how long they may store data before having to ask for permission to hold on to it for longer.

This kind of sunset clause is designed to make people think about their personal data and where it resides. An individual might decide to extend the life of his data, but having to do so actively will remind him of the presence and scale of his online data.  Giving people greater control over their information in an era of social networking websites and cloud computing, is expected to give greater confidence with respect to storing things online.

From a corporate perspective, this proposal may well impose an onerous burden:

• Marketing systems will need to be adapted to better seek permission to store personal data.
• It may well prove to be impossible to delete a piece of information completely and there will need to be limits to the liability of data holders.
• There are also questions about the ownership of data and where to draw the line between an individual customer’s data and the companies own.
• Companies will also have to appoint a data protection officer, a requirement that already exists in Germany.

Nevertheless, any attempt to make companies take their data seriously is to be welcomed and there is an upside. A company will only have to deal with one single data protection authority ie the data protection authority of the member state in which the company has its main establishment. It will not matter anymore which data protection authority deals with a case. All data protection authorities in whatever EU country will have the same adequate tools and powers to enforce EU-law. Overall it is expected to save businesses 2.3 billion euros a year by eliminating the mountain of red tape that companies must navigate currently.

The legislative process is likely to take at least two years, so the rules could still change considerably. Companies are unlikely be required to comply before 2014 or 2015, after legislation has been approved by national governments.

Photograph by Mike Tobin under a creative commons license

What's in a name

Quite a lot really. The name of a place certainly conjures up an image even if it is only a perception. London will get five new places after the Olympics, all named by members of the public, all created from that desperate strip of land running from Bow Road up to Eton Manor – or the Olympic Park as it is currently known.

At the outset let me make clear that I am a big fan of the regeneration that will take place as a result of the Olympics, if not the event itself. I am also very bored with the continued grizzling of some that “the jobs won’t go to local people” or “I could create more jobs than that with £9 billion”.  The fact is that, were it not for the Olympics, there would have been no new jobs, the money would not have been spent and the area concerned would still be in the same state of dereliction in ten years time.

 

That said it looks like “members of the public” have allowed their imaginations to run wild! One of the golden rules for a new place is to make it sound classy.  The view from East London is that Surrey is definitely high-class so what better than to steal a bit of Surrey as a new place. Chobham Manor will be the area north of the athletes village – the views of the inhabitants of Chobham village (Surrey) are unknown.

Pudding Mill has a vaguely bucolic feel to it – at least to anyone who hasn’t been there – but the real eyebrow raiser is Sweetwater. Now, I am sure that the plans for the area involve cleaning up the river Lea, but, looking at its current state, Sweetwater takes a pretty big leap of imagination. Research by University College London, shows the amount of faecal e-coli bacteria in the River Lea is more than 80 times the recommended level. Lovely!

The only name that really fits seems to be Marshgate Wharf, adjacent to the new Stratford City development, which has an authentic, gritty industrial feel to it. Eastwick will be the area east of Hackney Wick – see what they did there? I prefer to think that it has been named after the witches. Perhaps they will invite Jack Nicholson to the opening. 

A phased reopening of the park will begin in 2013, with families moving into the new conurbations in 2015. It will be interesting to see if any differences in value emerge amongst the different communities.

 

How green is my city?

In support of Savills assertion that German offices are green by default - it seems that, compared to other European cities, Germany's urban centers are better than average and among the best when it comes to protecting the climate and the environment. This is the finding of the German Green City Index, an urban study commissioned by Siemens from the Economist Intelligence Unit. 

The study (in German) scores each city in eight areas: Air quality, CO2 emissions, Energy, Buildings, Traffic, Water quality, Litter and Environmental management.

As far as CO2 emissions are concerned Stockholm and Oslo are way out in front but London does pretty well with an above average score alongside Berlin, Paris and Helsinki amongst others. The laggards here are Kiev and Sofia but there are a clutch of below average cities including Dublin, Budapest and Prague.

Predictably, London does badly as far as traffic is concerned alongside Paris and Rome amongst others, but is in the middle of the pack with respect to building standards, energy, air quality and litter. 

The latter feels counter intuitive. Perhaps it is the discarded coffee cups bowling down the road on a stiff breeze or the forests worth of free papers littering the station precincts or just the remains of last night's chicken Dansak thrown out of the car window, but London feels full of rubbish.

As far as building standards are concerned, all the German cities studied are above average with the exception of Cologne. A similar story can be seen as far as traffic management is concerned except the miscreant here is Leipzig - only average I am afraid.

Water quality sees all the German cities above average bar none. London's water also passed with flying colours (five times!). Air quality saw a broader spread with Athens one of the laggards - tear gas probably the reason.