The future of privacy: notes from #DCP18

In the near future we will have the choice to board an airplane in 15min if we agree on biometrical recognition through the airport and at the gate. We may also agree to buy tickets to big events based only on facial recognition and use the face to get in. The post-truth world will advance into an age where we all can verify the source of a picture or video due to a unique token attached to it. Moreover, we should be able to haggle with social media and other companies about the value of the data we want to sell them and when.

Europe’s only asset after the digital revolution have turned out to be the personal data of the consumers in the biggest market in the world. We are still looking for ways to monetize them.

While we’re at it, the supervisory bodies and controllers have a lot of work to do to make the future GDPR compliant.

by Katrīne Pļaviņa, Attorney-at-law, Latvia

Related Lawyers

Katrīne Pļaviņa


+371 26 164 110


Kalīne Ozola


+371 27 542 967


Elīza Grīnvalde

Junior Associate / AML specialist (CAMS)

+371 22 403 488


Related Experience

Defended a department store before the Consumer Rights Protection Centre in alleged price display breach for loyal customers.

Helped an energy company to explore ways of overturning the regulators ruling that the transmission system operator was not independent of its shareholders. The main challenge in the case was focusing on the fiduciary duties of the client’s management in managing the company while the shareholders are creating a conflict of interest and compliance risks.

Successfully defending owner of an airport hangar against claim brought by construction company regarding the owner’s refusal to pay for the defective construction works. On 14 January 2019 the district court adopted a judgement in favour of the client, which became effective as of 5 February 2019.

Representing an aviation company in an ongoing litigation regarding the repayment of investments. The company who received the funds later transferred its’ business in several coordinated transactions to a related company, and thereafter became insolvent. The client brought a claim against the recipient of the borrower’s business pursuant to Article 20 of Commercial Law.