This analysis will be a detailed summary of Data Protection Day, providing the most relevant aspects from each session. The event welcomed people to Brussels, as well as virtually, to celebrate Data Protection Day 2025 together.
Filled with a tight schedule, the event programme kicked off with opening remarks by the Secretary General of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), followed by a day of panels, speeches and side sessions from the brightest of minds in the data protection field.
Keynote speech by Leonardo Cervera Navas
Given the recent political turmoil in the EU, specifically the repealing of the Romanian elections a few months ago, it was no surprise that the first keynote speech addressed how algorithms are used to destabilise democracies and threaten them. Navas explained how third-country algorithms are used against EU democracies to target their values.
He then went on to discuss how there is a big power imbalance when certain wealthy people with their companies dominate the tech world and end up violating our privacy. However, he turned towards a hopeful future when he spoke about how the crisis in Europe is making us Europeans stronger. ‘Our values are what unite us, and part of them are the data protection values the EDPB strongly upholds’, he emphasised.
He acknowledged the evident overlap of rules and regulations between different legal instruments but also highlighted the creation of tools that can help uphold our privacy, such as the Digital Clearing House 2.0.
Organiser’s panel moderated by Kait Bolongaro
This panel discussed a wide variety of data protection topics, such as the developments on the ground, how international cooperation played a role in the fight against privacy violations, and what each panellist’s priorities were for the upcoming years. That last question was especially interesting to hear given the professional affiliations of each panellist.
What is interesting about these panels, is the fact that the organisers spent a lot of time curating a diverse panel. They had people from academia, private industry, public bodies, and even the EDPS. This ensures that a panel’s topic is discussed from more than one point of view, which is much more engaging.
Wojciech Wiewiorowski, the current European Data Protection Supervisor, reminded us of the important role that data protection authorities (DPAs) play in the effective enforcement of the GDPR. Matthias Kloth, Head of Digital Governance and Sport, CoE, showed us a broader perspective. As his work surrounds the evolved Convention 108, now known as Convention 108+, he shed some light on the advancements of updating and bringing past laws into today’s modern age.
Regarding international cooperation, each panellist had their own unique take on how to facilitate and streamline it. Wiewiorowski correctly stated that data has no borders and that cooperation with everyone is needed, as a global effort. However, he reminded, that in the age of cooperation, we cannot have a low level of protection by following the ‘lowest common denominator level of protection’.
Jo Pierson, Professor at the Vrije University Brussels and the Hasselt University, said that international cooperation is very challenging. He gave the example that country’s values may change overnight, giving the example of Trump’s recent re-election victory.
Audience questions
A member of the audience posed a very relevant question regarding the legal field as a whole.
He asked the panellists what they thought of the fact that enforcing one’s rights is a difficult and
costly process. To provide context, he explained how a person must be legally literate and bear their own costs for litigation to litigate or filing an appeal.
Wiewiorowski of the EDPS pointed out that changing the procedural rules of the GDPR is not feasible to tackle this issue. There is the option for small-scale procedural amendments, but he does not foresee the GDPR being opened up in the coming years.
However, Pierson had a more practical take on the matter and suggested that this is where individuals and civil society organisations can join forces. Individuals can approach organisations such as noyb, Privacy International, and EDRi for help or advice on the matter. But then it begs the question, on whose shoulders should this burden rest?
One last question from the audience was about the bombshell new Chinese AI ‘DeepSeek’ recently dropped onto the market. The panellists were asked whether this new AI is an enemy or a friend to us Europeans. Each panellist avoided calling Chinese AI an enemy or a friend, but they did find common ground on the fact that we need international cooperation and that an open-source AI is not a bad thing if it can be trained by Europeans.
The last remark regarding this panel was Wiewiorowski’s comment on Chinese AI and how he compared it to ‘Sputnik Day’ (the 1950s space race between the United States and the USSR). Are we in a new technological gap? Will non-Western allies and foes beat us in this digital arms race?
Data protection in a changing world: What lies ahead? Moderated by Anna Buchta
This session also had a series of interesting questions for high-profile panellists. The range of this panel was impressive as it regrouped opinions from the European Commission, the Polish Minister of Digital Affairs, the European Parliament, the UK’s Information Commissioner, and DIGITALEUROPE.
Notably, Marina Kaljurand from LIBE and her passion for cyber matters. She revealed that many people in the European Parliament are not tech literate. On the other hand, some people are extremely well-versed in how the technology is used. There seems to be a big information asymmetry within the European Parliament that needs to be addressed if they are to vote on digital regulations.
She gave an important overview of the state of data transfers with the UK and the USA. The UK has in place an adequacy decision that has raised multiple flags in the European Parliament and is set to expire in June 2025.
The future of data transfer in the UK is very uncertain. As for the USA, she mentioned that there will be difficult times due to the actions of the recently re-elected President Trump that are degrading US-EU relations. Regarding her views on the child sexual abuse material regulation, she stresses how important it is to protect children and that the debate is not about whether or not to protect them or not, but that it is difficult to find out ‘how’ to protect them.
The current proposed regulations will put too much stress on violating one’s privacy, but on the other hand, it is difficult to find alternatives to protect children. This reflects how difficult regulating can be even when everyone at the table may have the same goals.
Irena Moozova, the Deputy Director-General of DG JUST at the European Commission, said that her priorities for the upcoming years are to cut red tape, simplify guidelines for businesses to work and support business compliance efforts for small and medium-sized enterprises. She mentions the public consultation phases that will be held for the upcoming Digital Fairness Act this summer.
John Edwards, the UK Information Commissioner, highlighted the transformative impact of emerging technologies, particularly Chinese AI, and how disruptive innovations can rapidly reshape markets. He discussed the ICO’s evolving strategies, noting their alignment with ideas shared by other experts. The organisation’s focus for the next two years includes key areas such as AI’s role in biometrics and tracking, as well as safeguarding children’s privacy. To address these priorities, the ICO has published an online tracking strategy and conducted research on children’s data privacy, including the development of systems tailored to protect young users.
Alberto Di Felice, Legal Counsel to DIGITALEUROPE, stressed the importance of simplifying regulations. He repeatedly stated numerous times that there is too much bureaucracy and too many actors involved in regulation. For example, if a company wants to operate in the EU market, they will have to consult DPAs, AI Act authority, data from the public sector (Data Governance Act), manufacturers or digital products (authorities for this), and financial sector authorities.
He advocated for a single regulator. He also mentioned how the quality of regulation in Europe
is poor and that sometimes regulations are too long. For example, some AI Act articles are 17 lines long with exceptions and sub-exceptions that lawyers cannot even make sense of. He suggested reforms such as having one regulator and proposing changes to streamline legal compliance.
Keynote speech by Beatriz de Anchorena on global data protection
Beatriz de Anchorena, Head of Argentina’s DPA and current Chair of the Convention 108+ Committee, delivered a compelling address on the importance of global collaboration in data protection. Representing a non-European perspective, she emphasised Argentina’s unique contribution to the Council of Europe (CoE).
Argentina was the first country outside Europe to receive an EU adequacy decision, which has since been renewed. Despite having data protection laws originating in the 2000s, Argentina remains a leader in promoting modernised frameworks.
Anchorena highlighted Argentina’s role as the 23rd state to ratify the Convention 108+, noting that only seven more countries need to ratify it to come into force fully. She advocated Convention 108+ as a global standard for data protection, capable of upgrading current data protection standards without demanding complete homogeneity. Instead, it offers a common ground for nations to align on privacy matters.
What’s on your mind: Neuroscience and data protection moderated by Ella Mein
Marcello Ienca, a Professor of Ethics of AI and Neuroscience at the University of Munich, gave everyone in the audience a breakdown of how data and neuroscience intersect and the real-world implications for people’s privacy.
The brain, often described as the largest data repository in the world, presents a vast opportunity for exploration and AI is acting as a catalyst in this process. Large-scale language models are helping researchers in decoding the brain’s ‘hardware’ and ‘software’, although the full ‘language of thought’ remains unclear and uncertain.
Neurotechnology raises real privacy and ethical concerns. For instance, the ability to biomark
conditions like schizophrenia or dementia introduces new vulnerabilities, such as the risk of
‘neuro discrimination’, where predicting one’s illness might lead to stigmatisation or unequal
treatment.
However, it is argued that understanding and predicting neurological conditions is important, as nearly every individual is expected to experience at least one neurological condition in their lifetime. As one panellist put it, ‘We cannot cure what we don’t understand, and we cannot understand what we don’t measure.’
This field also poses questions about data ownership and access. Who should have the ‘right to read brains’, and how can we ensure that access to such sensitive data, particularly emotions and memories unrelated to clinical goals, is tightly controlled? With the data economy in an ‘arms race’, there is a push to extract information directly from its source: the human brain.
As neurotechnology advances, balancing its potential benefits with safeguards will be important to ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of individual privacy and autonomy as mandated by law.
In addition to this breakdown, Jurisconsult Anna Austin explained to us the ECtHR’s legal background surrounding this. A jurisconsult plays a key role in keeping the court informed by maintaining a network that monitors relevant case law from member states and central to this discussion are questions of consent and waiver.
Current ECtHR case law states that any waiver must be unequivocal, fully informed, and fully understand its consequences, which can be challenging to meet. This high standard exists to safeguard fundamental rights, such as protection from torture and inhumane treatment and ensuring the right to a fair trial. As it stands, she stated that there is no fully comprehensive waiver mechanism.
The right to a fair trial is an absolute right that needs to be understood in this context. One nuance in this context is therapeutic necessity where forced medical interventions can be justified under strict conditions with safeguards to ensure proportionality.
Yet concerns remain regarding self-incrimination under Article 6. Particularly in scenarios where reading one’s mind could improperly compel evidence, raising questions about the abuse of such technologies.
Alessandra Pierucci from the Italian DPA made a relevant case for whether new laws should be
created for this matter or whether existing ones are sufficient. Within the context of her work, they are developing a mental privacy risk assessment.
Beyond privacy unveiling the true stakes of data protection. Moderated by Romain Robert
Nathalie Laneret, Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Criteo, presented her viewpoint on the role of AI and data protection. Addressing the balance between data protection and innovation, Laneret explained that these areas must work together.
She stressed the importance of finding a ways to use pseudonymised data and clear codes of conduct for businesses to use when pointing out that innovation is high on the European Commission’s political agenda.
Laneret addressed concerns about sensitive data, such as children’s data, highlighting Criteo’s proactive approach. With an internal ethics team, the company anticipated potential regulatory challenges around sensitive data, ensuring it stayed ahead of ethical and compliance issues.
In contrast, Max Schrems, Chair of noyb, offered a more critical perspective on data practices. He pointed out the economic disparity in the advertising model, explaining that while advertisers generate minimal revenue per user annually, they often charge users huge fees for their data. Schrems highlighted the importance of individuals having the right to freely give up their privacy if they choose, provided that consent is genuinely voluntary and given.
Forging the future: reinventing data protection? Moderated by Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna
In this last panel, Johnny Ryan from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties painted a stark picture of
the societal challenges tied to data misuse. He described a crisis fuelled by external influence,
misunderstandings, and data being weaponised against individuals.
However, Ryan argued that the core issue is not merely the problems themselves but the fact that the EU lacks an effective and immediate response strategy. He stated the need for swift protective measures, criticising the current underuse of interim tools that could mitigate harm in real-time.
Nora Ni Loideain, a Lecturer and Director at the University of London’s Information Law and Policy Centre, discussed the impact of the GDPR on data protection enforcement. Explaining how DPAs had limited powers in the past and, for example, in events like the Cambridge Analytica scandal, she noted that the UK’s Data Protection Authority could only fine Facebook £500,000 due to a lack of resources and authority.
This is where the GDPR has allowed for DPAs to step up with independence, greater resources, and stronger enforcement capabilities, significantly improving their ability to hold companies accountable for their privacy violations.
Happy Data Protection Day 2025!
