“legitimate interest” = money in it for them
What could be less ambiguous than that?
EU states' justice ministers seemed to be competing to sound the most disappointed as they grudgingly agreed to move forward on a new data protection law. Although a compromise general approach was reached, most countries found fault with the text of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation – quite a feat considering …
... to say that all data about an individual belongs to that individual, and use (defined as analysis and action based upon it) of that data can only be done:
a) Where the individual gives full and free informed consent
b) Where primary legislation allows for it (primary legislation so that it is debated openly in the legislature) or
c) Where a warrant obtained from one - or some situations, more than one - judge?
Seems straight-forward to me - just needs some moral backbone from our supposed representatives (OK, so the Council of Ministers here consists of each Member State's Minister for the Home or Justice Department, meaning that the likes of Twathead May are there, so the current "compromise" is completely expected). The European Parliament, though, are starting to realise that they do have real power, so maybe we can pin our hopes on them.
What does "a balanced view on profiling" mean?
It is my profile, so I get to decide whether or not you can create it and what you can do with it. Just me. Fully. No balance involved.
Of course, you are welcome to show me the wonderful benefits you can provide if I choose to give you certain capabilities to profile me. Just as you would if you were asking for money instead. I decide if that is worth it to me. That is how balance works. Not in the regulations.