{"id":568,"date":"2020-11-26T10:19:04","date_gmt":"2020-11-26T09:19:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/?p=568"},"modified":"2020-11-26T10:19:04","modified_gmt":"2020-11-26T09:19:04","slug":"these-protection-des-donnees-personnelles-et-droit-a-la-vie-privee-enquete-sur-la-notion-controversee-de-donnee-a-caractere-personnel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/2020\/11\/26\/these-protection-des-donnees-personnelles-et-droit-a-la-vie-privee-enquete-sur-la-notion-controversee-de-donnee-a-caractere-personnel\/","title":{"rendered":"Th\u00e8se – Protection des donn\u00e9es personnelles et droit \u00e0 la vie priv\u00e9e : enqu\u00eate sur la notion controvers\u00e9e de \u00ab donn\u00e9e \u00e0 caract\u00e8re personnel \u00bb"},"content":{"rendered":"

La soutenance de ma th\u00e8se, intitul\u00e9e Protection des donn\u00e9es personnelles et droit \u00e0 la vie priv\u00e9e : enqu\u00eate sur la notion controvers\u00e9e de \u00ab donn\u00e9e \u00e0 caract\u00e8re personnel \u00bb<\/em>, a eu lieu le 2 juillet 2020 \u00e0 Compi\u00e8gne. La vid\u00e9o de la soutenance<\/a> est toujours disponible sur Youtube, et la th\u00e8se peut \u00eatre t\u00e9l\u00e9charg\u00e9e ici<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Merci encore aux membres du jury d’avoir accept\u00e9 de se pr\u00eater \u00e0 l’exercice en pleine crise sanitaire et, pour la plupart, en visioconf\u00e9rence.<\/p>\n

In English:<\/em><\/p>\n

The defense of my PhD thesis on<\/em> Data Protection and the Right to Privacy took place on the 2nd of July, 2020, in Compi\u00e8gne. The video (in French) is still available on YouTube<\/a>. An English summary of the dissertation can be downloaded here<\/a>. The original, full-length dissertation can be downloaded here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

R\u00e9sum\u00e9 de la th\u00e8se<\/strong><\/p>\n

La menace qu\u2019Internet et les technologies num\u00e9riques de l\u2019information et de la communication en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral font ou feraient peser sur la vie priv\u00e9e soul\u00e8ve de nombreux d\u00e9bats, tant dans la presse qu\u2019au niveau politique. L\u2019affaire Snowden en 2013, puis l\u2019adoption en 2016 du R\u00e8glement g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de protection des donn\u00e9es (RGPD), ont renforc\u00e9 la visibilit\u00e9 de ces controverses dans l\u2019espace public.<\/p>\n

Cette th\u00e8se part d\u2019une triple interrogation\u00a0: pouvons-nous d\u00e9finir ce qu\u2019est la \u00ab\u00a0vie priv\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb, existe-t-il un consensus autour de la question, et ce consensus \u00e9volue-t-il avec des \u00e9volutions de notre milieu technique qui affectent nos modes de communication, et donc d\u2019intrusion dans celle-ci\u00a0?<\/p>\n

En d\u00e9finissant la \u00ab\u00a0vie priv\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb comme l\u2019objet prot\u00e9g\u00e9 par des textes normatifs \u2013 textes de loi, jurisprudence et standards techno-politiques d\u2019Internet \u2013 qui prot\u00e8gent le droit \u00e0 la<\/i> vie priv\u00e9e, il est possible d\u2019en \u00e9tudier empiriquement l\u2019\u00e9volution et les controverses qui l\u2019accompagnent.<\/p>\n

Le droit de la protection des donn\u00e9es \u00e0 caract\u00e8re personnel a \u00e9merg\u00e9 en Europe dans les ann\u00e9es 1970 pour prot\u00e9ger une \u00ab\u00a0vie priv\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb per\u00e7ue comme menac\u00e9e par une informatique encore \u00e0 ses d\u00e9buts. Aujourd\u2019hui, le RGPD, ou encore certains documents \u00e9dict\u00e9s par des organismes de standardisation comme l\u2019Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ou le World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), visent \u00e0 prot\u00e9ger cette vie priv\u00e9e au travers d\u2019un corpus de r\u00e8gles, la \u00ab\u00a0protection des donn\u00e9es\u00a0\u00bb, qui concerne les \u00ab\u00a0donn\u00e9es \u00e0 caract\u00e8re personnel\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n

Les d\u00e9finitions juridiques de cette notion produites dans des ar\u00e8nes institutionnelles et celles produites dans des ar\u00e8nes de standardisation technique sont identiques. L\u2019\u00e9tude de la g\u00e9n\u00e9alogie de la protection des donn\u00e9es r\u00e9v\u00e8le en outre le r\u00f4le d\u00e9terminant d\u2019informaticiens dans l\u2019invention de la \u00ab\u00a0protection des donn\u00e9es\u00a0\u00bb et en particulier des principes qui r\u00e9gissent aujourd\u2019hui encore les dispositions contenues dans le RGPD.<\/p>\n

L\u2019analyse des controverses qui ont eu lieu dans les ar\u00e8nes d\u2019\u00e9laboration de ces normes montre que la notion de \u00ab\u00a0donn\u00e9e \u00e0 caract\u00e8re personnel\u00a0\u00bb inscrite dans les textes de notre corpus refl\u00e8te essentiellement le syst\u00e8me de convictions d\u2019une coalition d\u2019acteurs inspir\u00e9s par des id\u00e9aux lib\u00e9raux utilitaristes, attach\u00e9s \u00e0 l\u2019autonomie de l\u2019individu et accordant de l\u2019importance au respect de son consentement. Ce paradigme s\u2019est impos\u00e9 dans les ar\u00e8nes \u00e9tudi\u00e9es face \u00e0 d\u2019autres conceptions de la \u00ab\u00a0vie priv\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb, notamment celles qui la d\u00e9finissent comme un espace collectivement d\u00e9fini \u00f4t\u00e9 au regard de l\u2019espace public, ou encore celles qui pr\u00e9conisent une patrimonialisation de ces donn\u00e9es.<\/p>\n

Ce n\u2019est donc pas l\u2019informatique qui a directement d\u00e9termin\u00e9 une \u00e9volution dans l\u2019objet de la protection du droit de la vie priv\u00e9e, mais ses perceptions par un groupe d\u2019acteurs. Convaincus de l\u2019utilit\u00e9 sociale de la protection de leur conception lib\u00e9rale de la vie priv\u00e9e, ces derniers sont parvenus \u00e0 faire \u00e9merger, en Europe, dans les ann\u00e9es 1970, une nouvelle cat\u00e9gorie juridique\u00a0: le droit \u00e0 la protection des donn\u00e9es. Le RGPD, adopt\u00e9 en 2016, tout comme les projets de standards du Web visant \u00e0 prot\u00e9ger la vie priv\u00e9e et \u00e9tudi\u00e9s dans cette th\u00e8se, reprennent les principes issus de ces premiers d\u00e9bats. Ce faisant, l\u2019arriv\u00e9e de l\u2019informatique a, indirectement mais effectivement, \u00e9t\u00e9 un \u00e9l\u00e9ment d\u00e9clencheur dans l\u2019\u00e9volution de la \u00ab\u00a0vie priv\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb d\u00e9finie comme objet du droit \u00e0 la vie priv\u00e9e.<\/p>\n

Mots-clefs<\/u>\u00a0: informatisation de la communication, vie priv\u00e9e, protection des donn\u00e9es, donn\u00e9es \u00e0 caract\u00e8re personnel, approches communicationnelles du droit et des politiques publiques<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

English abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

Internet and digital information and communication technologies in general are often portrayed as a threat to privacy. This gives rise to many debates, both in the media and among decision-makers. The Snowden revelations, in 2013, followed by the adoption in 2016 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have moved these discussions under the spotlight of the public sphere.<\/p>\n

The research presented in this dissertation was born out of three questions: can we define what \u201cprivacy\u201d is? Is there any consensus on its definition? And does this consensus change with the evolution of the technical <\/span>milieu transforming our ways of communicating, and by doing so, the way in which our privacy can be intruded upon?<\/span><\/p>\n

B<\/span>y defining \u201cprivacy\u201d as the object which is protected by normative texts \u2013 <\/span>laws, court decisions, techno-political standards of the Internet \u2013 protecting the right to privacy, it becomes possible to conduct an empirical study of how it evolved and how it has been a topic of contention.<\/span><\/p>\n

Data protection law emerged in Europe during the 1970\u2019s. Its aim was to protect a \u201cprivacy\u201d that was perceived as under threat by the advent of computers. Currently, the GDPR, or some documents adopted by standards-settings organisations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) or the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), are written with the intention that they protect this privacy through a set of rules and principles referred to as \u201cdata protection\u201d, that apply to \u201cpersonal data\u201d.<\/p>\n

T<\/span>he legal definitions of this notion produced by political institutions and those crafted in standards-settings bodies are identical. Furthermore, the study of the genealogy of data protection reveals that computer scientists have played a pivotal role in the invention of the principles that \u201cdata protection\u201d still relies on, for instance in the GDPR.<\/span><\/p>\n

The analysis of the controversies that took place in the shaping of these rules shows that the notion of \u201cpersonal data\u201d written down in the normative texts we analysed essentially reflects the beliefs system of a coalition inspired by liberal utilitarian ideals, <\/span>valuing individual autonomy and granting importance to the respect of one\u2019s consent. <\/span>This framing of \u201cprivacy\u201d has become the paradigm on the field. Other theories, such as those defining \u201cprivacy\u201d as a space bound by collectively defined borders protecting it from the public eye, or those advocating the recognition of private property rights on personal data, have been less successful in shaping policy outcomes.<\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>he advent and spread of networked computers have not directly determined the evolution of the object that is protected by the right to privacy. It is, rather, the perceptions a group of actors had of computers, <\/span>that caused such an evolution<\/span>. Convinced <\/span>that their liberal conception of privacy is socially valuable, they managed to craft a new legal category during the 1970\u2019s in Europe: the right to the protection of personal data. <\/span>The GDPR, adopted in 2016, just like Web standards aiming at enhancing the protection of privacy, rely those same principles that were invented during these early debates. Therefore, it can be said that the emergence of computers has indeed, but indirectly, been <\/span>a triggering<\/span> factor <\/span>in the evolution of \u201cprivacy\u201d defined as the object protected by the right to privacy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/u>\u00a0: digitisation of communication, privacy, data protection, personal data, communicational theories of Law and public policy<\/span><\/p>\n

Image mise en avant : https:\/\/openclipart.org\/detail\/298034\/graduation (domaine public)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La soutenance de ma th\u00e8se, intitul\u00e9e Protection des donn\u00e9es personnelles et droit \u00e0 la vie priv\u00e9e : enqu\u00eate sur la notion controvers\u00e9e de \u00ab donn\u00e9e \u00e0 caract\u00e8re personnel \u00bb, a eu lieu le 2 juillet 2020 \u00e0 Compi\u00e8gne. La vid\u00e9o…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":569,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[36,37,7,28,27,32,29,33,30,9,19,23,21,24,40,47,18,5,4],"class_list":["post-568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-non-classe","tag-analyse-de-controverses","tag-analyse-des-politiques-publiques","tag-analyse-textuelle","tag-cedh","tag-cjue","tag-donnee-a-caractere-personnel","tag-droit","tag-historique","tag-jurisprudence","tag-methodologie","tag-protection-des-donnees","tag-relations-internationales","tag-science-politique","tag-sic","tag-technologie","tag-these","tag-universite-de-technologie-de-compiegne","tag-vie-privee","tag-w3c"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=568"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":571,"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568\/revisions\/571"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.julienrossi.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}