Combining privacy in the workplace with information security measures.
summary
A multidisciplinary panel reports the MUSES project building a usable endpoint security prototype and says companies pair yearly Safe Harbor certification with model clause contracts for each transfer or rely on parent-company cover; Belgium enforces a two-stage laptop-search rule that forbids immediate individual inspection; consent is recommended as a secondary legal basis while employers use notices and works‑council agreements; the draft GDPR adds DPA fining powers that materially raise enforcement risk and compliance costs.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (14)
- 0:00Intro
- 1:40Opening remarks
- 2:54Balancing the right to privacy
- 12:23Transparency
- 19:10Monitoring
- 27:59Consent as an employee
- 31:12Importance of the sanctioning risk
- 35:59Data privacy and information security
- 38:04Privacy at work
- 42:00Sanctions and enforcement
- 44:47Communication monitoring
- 47:01Processing customer data
- 49:23Transfer of personal data
- 55:16Advice to a multinational
related talks
01h 04mAcademic sessions privacy and surveillance
43mE-Privacy & GDPR
43mPanel: Cooperation For a Functioning Data Protection Framework
22mPanel Discussion – 17 months of GDPR experience – Should we review?
52mDeveloping privacy
01h 10mThe state of the art requirement for GDPR security measures.
32mPanel: How can Data Protection become a driver for the Data Economy
01h 16mSecurity meets data protection: risk assessment, standards and certification