据Bitcoinexchangeguide 10月29日报道，欧洲议会(European Parliament)最近通过了一项决议，探讨了分布式账本技术（区块链技术）的潜在监管问题。该决议强调了欧盟内部行动协调一致、遵守《欧盟通用数据保护条例》（General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR）以及防止与ICO相关欺诈的必要性。
该决议遵循了数字化单一市场(Digital Single Market, DSM)的脚步，这是欧盟委员会2015年的十大政治优先考虑的事项之一。DSM政策的宗旨是“消除线上与线下世界的主要差异，打破跨境线上活动的障碍”，以便企业、政府和他们服务的人能够在不放弃数据隐私和安全的情况下充分地从数字技术的优势中获益。
虽然这听起来很不错，但要想实现这一目标，就像区块链技术那样从根本上去中心化，还需要监管者和技术开发人员之间的高度信任。法律公司Crowell & Moring布鲁塞尔办事处的高级法律顾问Maarten Stassen表示：
The European Parliament recently adopted a resolution to explore the potential regulation of “distributed ledger technologies”—a.k.a. blockchain technology. The resolution emphasized the need for harmonization within the union, compliance with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and protecting against fraud related to initial coin offerings (ICOs).
The resolution follows in the footsteps of the Digital Single Market, one of the European Commission’s 10 political priorities in 2015. The DSM policy seeks to “remove key differences between online and offline worlds, breaking down the barriers to cross-border online activity” so that businesses, governments and the people they serve can profit fully from the advantages of digital technology without giving up data privacy and security.
While it sounds nice, achieving that goal with something as fundamentally decentralized as blockchain technology could require a hefty amount of good faith between regulators and technology developers.
“Trust will remain the key factor,” said Maarten Stassen, senior counsel in the Brussels office of Crowell & Moring. “Not only should the regulators trust the different actors in the digital ecosystem, but these actors should most certainly do all the necessary to gain such trust, both of the regulators and the individuals.”
Ironically, the same qualities that make blockchain technology so useful—an autonomous, decentralized platform that all parties have an equal measure of control over? are the reasons it could prove difficult to regulate. Stassen thinks that future regulations could come down to proportionality and transparency.
“There are many ways to build DLT technology with data protection in mind, starting from the amount of data that will be collected, the identity and access rights that will be granted, the technical and organizational measures that will be put in place,” Stassen said.
In this case, proportionality means looking at blockchain and technology in general as the end rather than the means when assessing compliance with the GDPR. Technology has traditionally been regulated as a tool, something that can be used to store data or transfer information. Stassen believes that when personal data is entered into a blockchain-based system—like a smart contract signed by two people hundreds of miles apart—the technology itself is the purpose, not the executor of that purpose.
“If the technology is the purpose, or at least one of the most important purposes of the processing, it determines the threshold that will be used to assess compliance with the proportionality requirements,” Stassen said.
The burden of making that purpose transparent to consumers could fall to blockchain tech developers, who will have to comply with the regulations surrounding data protection as early as the design phase. Stassen also notes developers should have a “sales pitch” that will distinguish to the public what makes the technology unique and create a general awareness of how their personal data would be used.
“This ‘sales pitch’ will make individuals focus on the technology and the consequences that they could have for their rights and freedoms, which is not the mind-set that one would have when the technology is subordinate to other purposes,” Stassen said.