Consolidating the Right to Data Protection in the Information Age: A Comparative Appraisal of the Adoption of the OECD (Revised) Guidelines into the EU GDPR, the Ghanaian Data Protection Act 2012 and the Kenyan Data Protection Act 2019

2020 ◽  
pp. 192-207
Author(s):  
Rogers Alunge
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Information Age ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals A Healthy Sense of Trust

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Denis Horgan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Big Data ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Fast Moving ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Personalised Medicine ◽  
Drug Pricing ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In the fast-moving arena of modern healthcare with its cutting-edge science it is already, and will become more, vital that stakeholders collaborate openly and effectively. Transparency, especially on drug pricing, is of paramount importance. There is also a need to ensure that regulations and legislation covering, for example the new, smaller clinical trials required to make personalised medicine work effectively, and the huge practical and ethical issues surrounding Big Data and data protection, are common, understood and enforced across the EU. With more integration, collaboration, dialogue and increased trust among each and every one in the field, stakeholders can help mould the right frameworks, in the right place, at the right time. Once achieved, this will allow us all to work more quickly and more effectively towards creating a healthier - and thus wealthier - European Union.

scholarly journals Applicable Law to Transnational Personal Data: Trends and Dynamics

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1283-1308
Author(s):  
Jie (Jeanne) Huang
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Chinese Media ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Regional Coordination ◽  
The Law ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe recent COVID-19 outbreak has pushed the tension of protecting personal data in a transnational context to an apex. Using a real case where the personal data of an international traveler was illegally released by Chinese media, this Article identifies three trends that have emerged at each stage of conflict-of-laws analysis for lex causae: (1) The EU, the US, and China characterize the right to personal data differently; (2) the spread-out unilateral applicable law approach comes from the fact that all three jurisdictions either consider the law for personal data protection as a mandatory law or adopt connecting factors leading to the law of the forum; and (3) the EU and China strongly advocate deAmericanization of substantive data protection laws. The trends and their dynamics provide valuable implications for developing the choice of laws for transnational personal data. First, this finding informs parties that jurisdiction is a predominant issue in data breach cases because courts and regulators would apply the law of the forum. Second, currently, there is no international treaty or model law on choice-of-law issues for transnational personal data. International harmonization efforts will be a long and difficult journey considering how the trends demonstrate not only the states’ irreconcilable interests but also how states may consider these interests as their fundamental values that they do not want to trade off. Therefore, for states and international organizations, a feasible priority is to achieve regional coordination or interoperation among states with similar values on personal data protection.

The Right To Be Forgotten

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to be forgotten is an emerging legal concept allowing individuals control over their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain results. The right has been supported by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries, among others. The right is primarily grounded in notions of privacy and data protection but also relates to intellectual property, reputation, and right of publicity. Scholars and courts cite, as an intellectual if not legal root for the right to be forgotten, the legal principle that convicted criminals whose sentences are completed should not continually be publicly linked with their crimes. Critics contend that the right to be forgotten stands in conflict with freedom of expression and can lead to revisionist history. Scholars and others in the southern cone of South America, in particular, have decried the right to be forgotten because it could allow perpetrators of mass human rights abuses to cover up or obscure their atrocities. On the other hand, those in favor of the right to be forgotten say that digital technology preserves memory unnaturally and can impede forgiveness and individual progress. The right to be forgotten debate is far from resolved and poses difficult questions about access to, and control of, large amounts of digital information across national borders. Given the global nature of the Internet and the ubiquity of certain powerful search engines, the questions at issue are universal, but solutions thus far have been piecemeal. Although a 2014 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) garnered much attention, the right to be forgotten has been largely shaped by a 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. In 2016, the EU adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation that will take effect in 2018 and could have a major impact because it contains an explicit right to be forgotten (also called right to erasure). The new regulation does not focus on the theoretical or philosophical justification for a right to be forgotten, and it appears likely the debate over the right in the EU and beyond will not be resolved even when the new rule takes effect.

Oblivion Is Full of Memory

2021 ◽  
pp. 441-465
Author(s):  
Anabelen Casares Marcos
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The Internet ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to informational self-determination has raised bitter debate over the last decade as to the opportunity and possible scope of the right to demand withdrawal from the internet of personal information which, while true, might represent a detriment that there is no legal duty to put up with. The leading case in this topic is that of Mario Costeja, Judgment of the EU Court of Justice, May 13, 2014. The interest of recent European jurisprudence lies not so much in the recognition of such a right but in the appreciation of certain limits to its implementation, assisting data protection authorities in balancing the rights at stake in each case. Reflection on the current status of the issue considers rights and duties imposed in the matter by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, of 27 April, known as the new General Data Protection Regulation.

Personal Data and Contract Law: Challenges and Concerns about the Economic Exploitation of the Right to Data Protection

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-392
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Versaci
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Economic Exploitation ◽  
Digital Business Models ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The so-called ‘free’ digital business models – users are not requested to pay a price, but to disclose personal data – are a very common reality. To tackle this phenomenon, the European Commission’s proposal of Directive on contracts for the supply of digital content used the concept of personal data as counter-performance. This stance proved to be quite problematic. It has been opposed by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) arguing that it should not be possible to subject the fundamental right to data protection to a commercial transaction. This article dwells upon the economic exploitability of the right to data protection, showing that Article 8 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights and the related case law of the CJEU do not justify the concerns raised by the EDPS. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the legal traditions of the EU Member States recognize that personality rights can be the object of a contract, although they limit to a certain extent the private autonomy of the parties. Thus, the commodification of personal data – like the commodification of other incorporeal attributes of personality – is not banned. Rather, there is now a policy issue about how to handle the risk of personalized discrimination and the problem of inequality of bargaining power in digital business models based on personal data. In this respect, political decisions should not be too affected by conceptual barriers between data protection law and contract law. In line with this position, the author argues that the economic exploitation of the right to data protection should not be considered a waiver of the same right.

scholarly journals The Right to Privacy—A Fundamental Right in Search of Its Identity: Uncovering the CJEU’s Flawed Concept of the Right to Privacy

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (05) ◽  
pp. 722-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin M. Pfisterer
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn recent years, the CJEU has impressively brought to bear the protection of the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data as contained in the CFREU. The Court’s decisions in the Digital Rights, Schrems, Tele2, and PNR cases have reshaped the political and legal landscape in Europe and beyond. By restricting the powers of the governments of EU Member States and annulling legislative acts enacted by the EU legislator, the decisions had, and continue to have, effects well beyond the respective individual cases. Despite their strong impact on privacy and data protection across Europe, however, these landmark decisions reveal a number of flaws and inconsistencies in the conceptualization of the rights to privacy and protection of personal data as endorsed and interpreted by the CJEU. This Article identifies and discusses some of the shortcomings revealed in the recent CJEU privacy and data protection landmark decisions and proposes to the CJEU a strategy aimed at resolving these shortcomings going forward.

scholarly journals Can the Internet Forget? – Rhe Eight to be Forgotten in the EU Law and its Actual Impact on the Internet. Comparison of the Approaches Towards the Notion and Assessment of its Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-101
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gebuza
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Actual Impact ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe main aim of the article is to provide analysis on the notion of the right to be forgotten developed by the CJEU in the ruling Google v. AEPD & Gonzalez and by the General Data Protection Regulation within the context of the processing of personal data on the Internet. The analysis provides the comparison of approach towards the notion between European and American jurisprudence and doctrine, in order to demonstrate the scale of difficulty in applying the concept in practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document