This article aims to contribute to the public debate on the consequences and risks of the spreading of DNA data related to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Market developments drive DTC companies to find new business models. As a result of mergers and acquisitions and of the developments of new products and services, DNA data are often used differently than what they were originally collected for. Since DTC DNA data are not protected as well as health-related data generally are, it is hard to keep track of these data. This is partly due to legal and ethical issues such as unclarity of who owns DNA and problems with informed consent. Risks are identified with regards to privacy, information security, the right not to know, (un)equal opportunities, and national security. The author calls for an investment in knowledge and awareness in order to allow for a fair balance between opportunity and risk of DTC DNA products and services.

In this article the authors present the lessons learned from previous research efforts into dark markets. First the important features of dark markets are discussed, i.e. anonymity and trust, as well as the question how data on dark markets can be collected. Next, the authors illustrate how this data can be used to study the phenomenon of dark markets itself as well as the impact of police interventions on dark markets.

As an EU agency operating at the external borders of the EU, Frontex is actively involved in combating illegal migration. Since a rising number of migrants drown in the Mediterranean Sea or are pushed back to unsafe third countries, Frontex is being accused by human rights organizations for violating the fundamental rights of the EU. The Agency however maintains that it can’t be held accountable for human rights violations, as it is only assisting Member States, and not taking over their responsibility. This article analyses if this position is correct in the light of the growing tasks and mandate Frontex is granted by the EU.

In light of the high numbers of persons entering the EU via the southern borders and the current uneven distribution of asylum seekers (five Member States of the EU currently received in 2014 more than 70% of the total amount of refugees), there is a clear and urgent need for the EU ministers to ensure a fairer distribution of asylum seekers within the EU. The Dublin Regulation’s system of allocating the responsibility for an asylum request does not offer a solution for this challenge, also because Member States cannot have a blind faith in the standards of a number of states for processing asylum requests. There are significant differences in the application of the law and the procedures.