The EU Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data aims at harmonising data protection legislation in the European Union. This should promote the free flow of products and services within the EU. This research found a wide variety of interpretations of the application of data protection legislation to geographic data. The variety was found among the different EU Member States, the different stakeholders and the different types of geographic data. In the Netherlands, the Data Protection Authority (DPA) states that panoramic images of streets are considered personal data. While Dutch case law judges that the data protection legislation does not apply if certain features are blurred and no link to an address is provided. The topographic datasets studied in the case studies do not contain personal data, according to the Dutch DPA, while the German DPA and the Belgian DPA judge that topographic maps of a large scale can contain personal data, and impose conditions on the processing of topographic maps. The UK DPA does consider this data outside of the scope of legal definition of personal data. The patchwork of differences in data protection legislation can be harmonised by using a traffic light model. This model focuses on the context in which the processing of the data takes place and has four categories of data: (1) sensitive personal data, (2) personal data, (3), data that can possibly lead to identification, and (4) non-personal data. For some geographic data, for example factual data that does not reveal sensitive information about a person, can be categorised in the third category giving room to opening up data under the INSPIRE Directive.@en

Location technology allows for the tracking and tracing of individuals. Developments in location technology allow for increasing levels of detail to keep an eye on ones private life. There are concerns that the privacy awareness among citizens and privacy legislation hinders the success and further development of these technologies. This article assesses the extent to which European privacy legislation blocks location technology development. This is accomplished through a detailed analysis of the Dutch legal framework and an overall review of the European legal framework for protecting individual's privacy versus private sector use of location information and public sector use in the intelligence services. The analysis shows that privacy legislation puts users of terminal devices in control of the decision if and when his location information may be used by private sector location-based services providers. Users often seem willing to allow this, judging by the increase in available location-based services. Privacy legislation is not as protective regarding the use for law enforcement and secret intelligence purposes: privacy of mobile device users may be intruded for these purposes. Certainly after 9/11, developments in law are directed at increasing the mandates of law enforcement and intelligence services. Therefore, the location technology industry is likely to prosper from the investments of the public intelligence sector. For both privacy law legislating private sector use of location-based services and legislation for (secret) public sector use, this article shows that the European privacy regime does not endanger further location technology development.@en