In May 2018, the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 (Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten, Wiv) will enter into force. It replaces the previous 2002 Act and incorporates many reforms to the information gathering powers of the two intelligence and security services as well as to the accountability and oversight mechanisms. Due to the technologyneutral approach, both the civil and the military intelligence services are now authorized to, for example, intercept communications in bulk, hack third parties, decrypt files, store DNA or use any other future innovative technology. Also, the national security legislation extends the possibilities for the indiscriminate collection of data, and for the processing, storage and analysis thereof. The process leading to the law includes substantial criticism from the various stakeholders involved. Upon publication of this report, an official consultative referendum is being organized on the new act. The aim of this policy brief is to provide an international audience with a comprehensive overview of the most relevant aspects of the act and its context. In addition, there is considerable focus on the checks and balances as well as the bottlenecks of the Dutch intelligence gathering reform. The selection of topics is based on the core issues addressed during the parliamentary debate and on the authors’ insights.
DOCUMENT
The American company Amazon has made headlines several times for monitoring its workers in warehouses across Europe and beyond.1 What is new is that a national data protection authority has recently issued a substantial fine of €32 million to the e-commerce giant for breaching several provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (gdpr) with its surveillance practices. On 27 December 2023, the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (cnil)—the French Data Protection Authority—determined that Amazon France Logistique infringed on, among others, Articles 6(1)(f) (principle of lawfulness) and 5(1)(c) (data minimization) gdpr by processing some of workers’ data collected by handheld scanner in the distribution centers of Lauwin-Planque and Montélimar.2 Scanners enable employees to perform direct tasks such as picking and scanning items while continuously collecting data on quality of work, productivity, and periods of inactivity.3 According to the company, this data processing is necessary for various purposes, including quality and safety in warehouse management, employee coaching and performance evaluation, and work planning.4 The cnil’s decision centers on data protection law, but its implications reach far beyond into workers’ fundamental right to health and safety at work. As noted in legal literature and policy documents, digital surveillance practices can have a significant impact on workers’ mental health and overall well-being.5 This commentary examines the cnil’s decision through the lens of European occupational health and safety (EU ohs). Its scope is limited to how the French authority has interpreted the data protection principle of lawfulness taking into account the impact of some of Amazon’s monitoring practices on workers’ fundamental right to health and safety.
MULTIFILE
This paper presents the results of an evaluation of a technology-supported leisure game for people with dementia in relation to the stimulation of social behavior.
DOCUMENT
De coronapandemie heeft een enorme impact op het mentale welzijn van de Nederlandse bevolking. Gebaseerd op een grootschalig panelonderzoek (N = 22.696) naar de sociale impact van COVID-19, onderzoekt dit artikel ten eerste welke sociale groepen het meest vatbaar zijn voor de gevolgen van de pandemie op de geestelijke gezondheid. Ten tweede onderzoeken we of sociaal kapitaal bescherming biedt tegen deze gevolgen. We vinden dat de impact van COVID-19 op de geestelijke gezondheid aanzienlijk is en dat deze in de loop van 2020 is toegenomen. Vrouwen, jongeren, respondenten met lage inkomens en/of een slechte zelf ervaren gezondheid, ervaren relatief meer angst en stress als gevolg van de pandemie. We vinden geen verschil tussen respondenten met of zonder migratieachtergrond. Sociaal kapitaal (ontvangen steun, vertrouwen in mensen en in instellingen) heeft het verwachte effect: hoe meer steun en vertrouwen, hoe minder angst en stress. Er is een bemiddelingseffect. Ouderen, respondenten met hoge inkomens en/of een goede gezondheid ervaren minder angst en stress, deels omdat ze meer sociaal kapitaal hebben. Dit is anders voor vrouwen. Zij zouden zelfs meer angst en stress ervaren in vergelijking met mannen, ware het niet dat zij meer sociaal kapitaal hebben. We concluderen dus dat sociaal kapitaal inderdaad enige bescherming biedt tegen de negatieve gevolgen van COVID-19 voor de geestelijke gezondheid.
MULTIFILE
