The United States and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation

2020 ◽  
pp. 231-248
Author(s):  
Muge Fazlioglu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
General Data

scholarly journals ACRL Primer for Protecting Sensitive Data in Academic Research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Laura Nurnberger ◽  
Pamella Lach ◽  
Abigail H Goben ◽  
Sandra De Groote ◽  
Yasmeen Shorish
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
General Data ◽  
Communication Resource

This publication of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) was prepared by the ACRL Research and Scholarly Environment Committee (ReSEC) as a communication resource about providing protections for sensitive data that may be used or produced in the course of conducting academic research. This primer provides a quick grounding in the whats, whys, and hows of current regulations and practices for protecting sensitive data. It is based on work created in the Netherlands for the General Data Protection Regulation in EU law, but brought into the United States context. ACRL’s Primer for Protecting Sensitive Data in Academic Research is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0

scholarly journals Are Browse-wrap Agreements Legally Binding: As Analysed Across Multiple Jurisdictions

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 1333-1336
Author(s):  
Aashana Chandak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data ◽  
Adequate Communication ◽  
Multiple Jurisdictions

Browse-wrap agreements are e-contracts that lack the element of express consent which creates ambiguity in their enforcement across countries like India and Canada. The United States of America has through a plethora of case laws attempted to follow a framework with a adequate communication of notice system which is subjected to consumer protection concerns. With the recent enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulations(GDPR)in the European Union it has led to the complete abandonment of the browse-wrap agreements due to the lack of the consentbeing explicitly provided. Leading to the rise in the recognition of theclick-wrap agreements being adopted as a standardized form of e-commerce contracts across jurisdictions

scholarly journals The Limitations of European Data Protection As A Model for Global Privacy Regulation

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 20-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Togawa Mercer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Privacy Regulation ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Regulatory Model ◽  
The Cost

The consensus view is that European-style data protection (including the General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) (GDPR)) is becoming the global standard. But this view is not shared by all, with scholars pointing to divergence between European and American approaches to privacy. Determining the relative influence of each model is important. Regulation of the private sector use of personal data can shape economic and social conditions, from the cost of running a business to the relationships between consumers, companies, and their governments. This essay argues that it is too soon to conclude that the European Union has won the competition to influence global data protection and privacy laws, especially as the United States finds itself in the midst of shaping and defining its own privacy regime. I will explore the GDPR's viability as a global regulatory model, raising reasons to doubt that it will ultimately dominate the privacy regulation market. First, the mere fact that the United States is likely to develop a federal privacy regime that will depart from the European model will be influential in its own right. Second, there are compelling economic reasons for private and public entities to lobby against European-style regulation.

Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. and Maximillian Schrems (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-98
Author(s):  
Michael S. Aktipis ◽  
Ron B. Katwan
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Transfer Mechanism ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Privacy Concerns ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Eu

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its ruling in Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems, commonly known as Schrems II, invalidating the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield as a valid transfer mechanism under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and creating significant legal uncertainty for the continued availability of another widely used transfer mechanism, Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), for transfers of EU personal data from commercial entities in the EU to the United States. The widely anticipated ruling marked the second time in five years that the CJEU had invalidated the legal foundation for such data transfers, which in both cases had been the result of a carefully negotiated compromise balancing European data privacy concerns with statutory and constitutional limitations of the U.S. system (see Schrems I).

Troubleshooting AI and Consent

2020 ◽  
pp. 357-374
Author(s):  
Meg Leta Jones ◽  
Elizabeth Edenberg
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Choice Making ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Alternative Solutions

This chapter addresses the controversy over the role of consent in data protection, as artificial intelligence systems have proliferated in people’s daily lives. Digital consent has been criticized as a meaningless, procedural act because users encounter so many different, long, and complicated terms of service that do not help them effectively assess potential harms or threats. AI systems have played a role in exacerbating existing issues, creating new challenges, and presenting alternative solutions. Most of the critiques and cures for this broken arrangement address choice-making, not consent. As the United States debates whether and why to break up big tech, and the European Union considers enforcement actions under the General Data Protection Regulation and how to update its laws to address tracking techniques in a new AI-driven smart world, consent cannot be confused with choice. Consent must be defined by its moral core, involving clear background conditions, defined scope, knowledge, voluntariness, and fairness. When consent meets these demands, it remains a powerful tool for contributing to meaningful data protection at the individual and societal levels.

scholarly journals Differences Between Europe and the United States on AI/Digital Policy: Comment Response to Roundtable Discussion on AI

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 247028972090710
Author(s):  
Pierre-Antoine Gourraud ◽  
Francoise Simon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Roundtable Discussion ◽  
Medical Decisions ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Individual Health ◽  
General Data

For AI policy, there are significant differences between Europe and the United States. The General Data Protection Regulation, which applies not only to European Union companies but also to all American companies with European customers, is more protective than health insurance portability and accountability act for individual health data. Its Article 22 stipulates that citizens cannot be submitted to medical decisions generated by an automated source.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document