scholarly journals New digital rights: Imagining additional fundamental rights for the digital era

2022 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 105636
Author(s):  
Bart Custers
Author(s):  
Juan Fernando López Aguilar

Desde los primeros capítulos de la construcción europea con el Tratado de Roma (1957) que cumple 60 años, la jurisprudencia dictada por el Tribunal de Justicia ha sido determinante para la dimensión constitucional del ordenamiento comunitario. En una secuencia de decisiones históricas, el TJ ha afirmado su primacía, eficacia vinculante y su unidad garantizando su interpretación y aplicación uniforme, pero también, sobre todo, los derechos fundamentales dimanantes de las tradiciones constitucionales comunes como fuente del Derecho europeo (principios generales). Esta doctrina se consolida en Derecho positivo, al fin, con la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa (TL) en 2009, incorporando el TUE, el TFUE, y, relevantemente, la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la UE (CDFUE) con el «mismo valor jurídico que los Tratados» y, consiguientemente, parámetro de validez de todo el Derecho derivado, así como de enjuiciamiento de la compatibilidad de la legislación de los EE.MM con el Derecho europeo.La doctrina del TJUE sobre derechos fundamentales ha sido su proyección sobre la protección de datos en el marco de los derechos a la vida privada, a la privacidad frente a la transferencia electrónica de datos y al acceso a la tutela judicial de estos derechos (art. 7, 8 y 47 CDFUE). En ella conjuga los principios de reserva de ley (respetando su contenido esencial) y de proporcionalidad y necesidad de las medidas que les afecten. Pero, además, esta doctrina ha adquirido un impacto decisivo en la articulación jurídica de la relación transatlántica entre la UE y EEUU, confrontando los estándares de protección de datos a ambos lados del Atlántico e imponiendo garantías de un «nivel de protección adecuado» para los ciudadanos europeos. Este artículo examina el impacto de dos recientes sentencias relevantes del TJ —Asunto Digital Rights Ireland (2014) y Asunto Schrems (2015)— sobre el Derecho derivado (Directiva de Conservación de Datos de 2006, Directiva de Protección de Datos de 1995, y Decisión de «adecuación» de la Comisión Europea de 2000) y sobre instrumentos de Derecho internacional (Acuerdo Safe Harbour) entre la UE y EEUU. Impone, como consecuencia, no sólo una negociación que repare las deficiencias detectadas en ambas resoluciones sino una actualización del Derecho europeo (nuevo Data Protection Package en 2016) y una novedosa Ley federal de EEUU que por primera vez ofrece a los ciudadanos europeos acceso al sistema de recursos judiciales ante los tribunales estadounidenses en la defensa del derecho a la protección de datos (Judicial Redress Act, 2016).Right from the first very chapters of the European construction under the Treaty of Rome (1957), which turns 60 this year 2017, the jurisprudence by the Court of Justice has truly been decisive to shape the constitutional dimension of the European Community legal order. In a series of historical decisions, the CJEU has affirmed its primacy, its binding efficacy and unity, while guaranteeing its uniform interpretation and implementation. But it has also, above all, enshrined the fundamental rights resulting from the common constitutional traditions as a source of European Law (i.e general principles). This legal doctrine has been ultimately consolidated in positive Law, finally, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (TL) in 2009, incorporating the TEU, the TFEU and, most notably, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) with the «same legal value as the Treaties». Charter Fundamental Rights have turned to be, consequently, a parameter for examining the validity of secondary EU legislation, as well as for scrutinizing and reviewing the standard of compatibility of the national legislation of EU Member States with European law. The legal doctrine of the ECJ on fundamental rights has been particularly relevant in its impact on the data protection in the framework of the rights to privacy, privacy with regard to the electronic data transfer, and access to judicial protection of these rights (art. 7, 8 and 47 CFREU). It combines the principles of reservation of law (in due respect of its essential content) as well as proportionality and necessity for legislative measures that might affect them. But, moreover, this doctrine has had a decisive impact on the legal articulation of the so-called transatlantic partnership between the EU and the US, confronting data protection standards on both sides of the Atlantic and imposing guarantees of an «adequate level of protection» for all European citizens. This paper explores the impact of two recent relevant decisions by the ECJ — its rulings on Digital Rights Ireland case (2014) and on the Schrems case (2015) — upon the secondary EU legislation (Data Retention Directive of 2006, Data Protection Directive of 1995, and the «adequacy» Decision of the European Commission of 2000), as well as upon International Law instruments (Safe Harbour Agreement) between the EU and the US. It imposes, as a consequence, not only a negotiation that remedies the shortcomings detected in both decisions, but also a compelling updating of European law itself (new Data Protection Package in 2016) and a new US federal law, which, for the first time ever, provides European citizens with access to judicial remedies in U.S. Courts in defending their right to data protection (Judicial Redress Act, 2016).


Author(s):  
Olga Sydorenko ◽  
◽  
Valerii Zhelnin ◽  

The article is sanctified to research of interpretation and understanding of term «digital rights», decision of totality of those rights and freedoms of man, that fall under a term «digital human rights». In the article the issues of the day and questions were considered already fundamental rights, such as: right on life, right to freedom of speech, opinions, right to respect to private and domestic life in the context of informative computer network – Internet, and also the newest rights, such as: right on access to the Internet, right of digital self-determination, «right to be forgotten» and others like that. Separate attention was spared to the analysis of opinions of scientists and separate authors in relation to the protection of rights and freedoms of people in the Internet and research of events that will help to overcome the problem situations of realization and violation of «digital human rights and freedoms». It is educed that there are many different decisions that touch a term «digital rights», and also different approaches of interpretation of this term are considered, coming from the quantitative volume of rights, that can understand differently. This article attempts to formulate theoretical approaches and principles from the perspective of legal theory and philosophy that, if implemented, could overcome current human rights problems, existing violations of digital human rights and enhance their security and protection. Attempts have been made to explore the fact that, for a better protection of human rights and freedoms, it is necessary to educate the public about their rights and freedoms in the internet domain, to implement the conclusions of the ECHR in cases of human rights violations on the digital web, and so on.


2005 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanna Leisten ◽  
Terry Flew ◽  
Greg Hearn

This paper investigates the current turbulent state of copyright in the digital age, and explores the viability of alternative compensation systems. The paper critically appraises the increased recourse to digital rights management (DRM) technologies, which are designed to restrict access to and usage of digital content. Considerable technical challenges associated with DRM systems have necessitated increasingly aggressive recourse to the law. A number of controversial aspects of copyright enforcement are discussed and contrasted with those arising from alternative levy-based compensation systems. This paper undertakes consideration of alternative models for managing the copyright bargain in the digital era.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
Stefanus Oliver ◽  
Tommy Winarta

In this digital era, numerous copyrighted items such as music and movies can be enjoyed online. However, our activities in enjoying those entertainments are also limited by the copyright law. Some contents are also protected by Digital Rights Management, which makes sure that the user who purchases the item is the only person who has the right to enjoy the content. All of these rules are obviously made to make sure that everything is in order. Therefore, those illegal activities can be brought to justice. However, the lack of communication might present an ambiguity to the users, and those users might unconsciously do illegal things that are previously forbidden. Other than that, the law itself has its own limitation in the aspect of execution and enforcement, causing pirated versions of a content can be found easily on the internet. This paper is going to review the current condition of the execution of the law regarding the DRM protected contents.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-81
Author(s):  
Lydia Kriki

EU was quite a lot valiant back in 1957, when the Treaty of Rome established the dogma of free movement, paving the road for what was considered to be an economic integration. The dogma was founded on the principle of freedom relating to goods; and the subsequent EU Treaties strengthened the freedom of movement for services, persons and capital. However, they were not all the freedoms equally developed. For many years, it seemed that the European Union gave a fairly obvious advantage to the economic significance instead of focalizing on its people and the parameters of their needs. Subsequently, striking a balance between fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights has become a frequent exercise for the CJEU ever since, as well as a difficult puzzle. Bearing in mind that the digital era brings new challenges for both the circulation of commodities and the preservation of rights, the puzzle gets more and more complex: a tug-of-war between the tech-giants and our information privacy. By using the proportionality principle as its most effective weapon, the CJEU has built a convincing case-law, one step at time. However, does it really find the appropriate balance, or the conundrum is more complex than it seems? The present paper attempts to answer this question.


INTEGRITAS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-196
Author(s):  
Wijayanto Wijayanto ◽  
Nur Hidayat Sardini ◽  
Gita N. Elsitra

This research aims to reflect cyber-terror cases in the anti-corruption movement by Indonesian scholars in protest against the revision of the KPK Law in September 2019 and formulates the alternative solutions for anti-corruption activists’ cyber safety in the digital era. Based on focus group discussion with anti-corruption scholar activists and digital ethnography, this research found that, in general, anti-corruption activist prone to cyber-terror, and it weakened their movement. For strengthening the anti-corruption movement in the digital era, this research formulated three alternative solutions, which are: 1) strengthening consolidation of civil society organizations; 2) supporting the formulation of comprehensive cyber regulations; and 3) implementing campus mitigation. Those solutions could be the foundation for fulfilling and guaranteeing anti-corruption activists’ digital rights, especially for the freedom of expression and right to be protected in cyber-space, which is crucial for digital democracy in Indonesia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document