Brussels, 19-20 May 2009 Awareness and Public Opinion results from: Evaluation of the means used by national Data Protection Authorities in the promotion.

Brussels, 19-20 May 2009

Awareness and Public Opinionresults from:

Evaluation of the means used by national Data Protection Authorities in the promotion of personal data protection

Data protection conference

CONTENTS

1. Background of the evaluation study

2. Main findings and conclusions

3. Key topics for Debate

Promotional activities

1. Background of the evaluation: The Issue

Limited awareness

Poor knowledge of rights and of the existence of the DPSA

Data Protection Directive and DPSAs

Surveys

Background confirmed by findings

Awareness raising about the existence of the DPSA

Awareness level of the national data protection authorities

% that has heard of the existence of a DPA in their country

1619

24

39 3934

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

SK FR SE SI DE UK RO

Source: Eurobarometer Survey 2008

Awareness raising on personal data protection

Awareness of data subjects’ rights concerning their personal data

% of fully informed citizens

16

2121

2627

3335

0

10

20

30

40

FR SI UK SK RO DE SE

Source: Eurobarometer Survey 2008

Background confirmed by findings

• Identify and examine the means used by national data protection supervisory authorities in promoting personal data protection in general, and awareness raising in particular

• Conduct an in-depth examination of the means referred to above, examining also their efficacy and potential for application throughout all EU Member States

1. Scope of the evaluation: The Study

Three building blocks

Review (desk research)

Field and Analysis (field work: interviews, surveys)

Finalisation (validation, consolidation)

2. Main findings and conclusions

Findings and conclusions

Web tools

Publications

Events

Provision of targeted information and advice

Cooperation and exchange

Outputs of promotional activities and their effectiveness

Website

Seminars/conferences

Media / help line

Targeted campaigns

Findings and conclusions

Not the type of promotional output

Quality

Timing

Focus

Proactive or reactive character

Q: Visibility, clarity, pertinence, attractiveness, user friendliness

T: Before/after scandals

F: Focus on specific key topics

P: Inform public in advance / react promptly

What contributes to effectiveness?

Findings and conclusions

How to address needs of target groups?

Provision of digestible information

Responding to requests /complaints

Regular inspections / investigations /site visits

Recording questions / requests

Participation in conferences

Focus on certain sensitive sectors

The media as input and output

Findings from interviews with DPSAs

Human and financial resource capacity

Are inputs efficiently converted into outputs?

How to assess cost-effectiveness?

DPSAs independent organisations

Cannot use private funding

Often, no specific budget allocated to promotional activities

Have DPSAs have been able to cope satisfactorily?

Findings and conclusions

DPSAs do not possess formal mechanisms for assessing

effectiveness/impact/efficiency Measuring the take-up of advice

Monitoring website hits

Yearly tracking / reader surveys

Monitoring numbers of phone calls

Monitoring numbers of complaints and requests

Monitoring number of clarifications and opinions

Number of conferences where the DPSA is invited to participate

Where they exist, they are not used in a systematic way

Findings and conclusions

Differences in awareness depending on target groups

Knowledge of DPSA

60%

40%

Yes

No

Ever contacted DPSA

20%

80%Yes

No

Frequency of contact with DPA

0%

56%13%

31%Never

Sometimes

Very often

No info available

Knowledge of DPSA

0% 25%

75%

No

Somehow

Yes, Very much

Reps data subjects

Data controllers Experts

Findings and conclusions

What can be done?

Focus on certain sectors

Supplement current activities with actions targeted at governments and enforcement activities

Role of the media catalytic

Other methods: multi-media means

Closer cooperation and coordination at EU /int’l level

Constraints

Cost vs effectiveness

Coordination of large number of DPSAs

Differences in powers/functions

3. Topics for Debate

Recommendations

Approaches

Mechanisms/Tools

Strategic Issues

Towards a more proactive and pragmatic approach

Make the best use of the power of the media

Target the education sector

Develop self assessment mechanisms and strategies

Explore the use of audio-visual means

Increase cooperation with other public bodies involved in data protection incidents

Promote greater cooperation between Member States

Topics for debate

Key questions to debate Address needs of target groups – how to increase

interaction?

What works where and why?

What is the trade off between cost efficiency and effectiveness?

What are the most desirable activities/products and difficulties in producing/using them?

What we learn from each other? What is the scope of cooperation at EU level?

How to set targets and monitor own work?

Where has the impetus gone?

The London Initiative

Article 29 Working Party