A Data Protection Regime

2021 ◽  
pp. 205-256
Author(s):  
Oscar H. Gandy Jr.
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Agency ◽  
Regulatory Environment ◽  
Governmental Agency ◽  
Regulatory Response ◽  
Fair Information Practices

This chapter is focused on the need for and the likely problems to be encountered as we pursue a regulatory response, especially through the traditional framework for thinking about privacy and data protection. This regulatory framework is characterized through a consideration of an evolving tradition beginning with the contributions that were made by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis in 1890. Other perspectives, including those of Edward Bloustein, which suggested the importance of dignity and other intangible injuries are explored. Links between privacy interests and interests in intellectual property emerged within legislative and regulatory concerns being raised about rights to information. Of particular importance are struggles over information rights as they apply to individuals and rights claimed by corporate actors, including those rights being claimed by corporate pursuit of First Amendment, or speech, rights. Distinctions are also drawn in this chapter between rights sought as defenses against actions taken by corporate actors versus those of governmental actors, given the fact that the First Amendment as a constraint applies only to agencies of government. A variety of specific cases and continuing struggles within the legal and regulatory environment are described, and due note is taken of the increasing influence of a neoliberal framing of a “marketplace solution” as the appropriate solution for conflicts over informational rights. The chapter concludes with a discussion of “Fair Information Practices” as a strategy for assigning oversight responsibility for informational regulation to a government agency. While there was expression of hope and desire for a governmental agency focused solely on privacy-related concerns, the creation of such an agency in the United States was not forthcoming.

Data Protection and Intellectual Property: Information Systems and the Americanization of the New Europe

1996 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 891-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
M R Curry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Information Systems ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emerging Democracies ◽  
Western Influence ◽  
Computer Based

The introduction of computer-based information systems into the newly emerging democracies—and markets—of Central and Eastern Europe raises important questions. With information seen by many in government and industry as the gold of the future, it is not surprising that it is common in the West to see it as essential that those countries adopt regulations that will encourage its relatively unfettered flow. In fact, in the key areas of data protection and intellectual property we can see strong indications of Western influence. But this is occurring in different ways. In the case of data protection, US influence has been brought to bear through intermediaries, particularly the European Community. In the case of intellectual property, the United States has acted more directly. In both cases, though, the United States is promoting what it sees as its own values despite their being in important ways at odds with those not simply of Central and Eastern Europe but of Europe more generally.

scholarly journals Case of Misplaced Technology

2010 ◽  
Vol 132 (06) ◽  
pp. 47-47
Author(s):  
Kirk Teska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Court Hearing

This article demonstrates through several examples of misplaced technology and clash between intellectual property laws and freedom of speech. The first example stated in the article is that of an Apple engineer leaving his prototype next-generation iPhone in a bar and it ended up at gizmodo.com—a website devoted to technology. The folks at Gizmodo tore into the iPhone, confirmed its authenticity, and then put photographs of the phone along with a list of its new features on the gizmodo.com site. Apple, rather than suing, at least so far, simply asked for the prototype phone back and Gizmodo complied. Could Apple sue Gizmodo or would First Amendment protect Gizmodo, only depending upon certain different factors and to an extent on the particular court hearing the case. The ultimate authority on the First Amendment, the United States Supreme Court, generally loathes limiting free speech for any reason.

Dissent in the Atlantic World, 1787–1830

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Carté Engel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Church And State ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Population ◽  
Simple Fact ◽  
General Role

The very term ‘Dissenter’ became problematic in the United States, following the passing of the First Amendment. The formal separation of Church and state embodied in the First Amendment was followed by the ending of state-level tax support for churches. None of the states established after 1792 had formal religious establishments. Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Methodists accounted for the majority of the American population both at the beginning and end of this period, but this simple fact masks an important compositional shift. While the denominations of Old Dissent declined relatively, Methodism grew quickly, representing a third of the population by 1850. Dissenters thus faced several different challenges. Primary among these were how to understand the idea of ‘denomination’ and also the more general role of institutional religion in a post-establishment society. Concerns about missions, and the positions of women and African Americans are best understood within this context.

scholarly journals The United States’ Regulatory Environment Is Evolving to Accommodate a Coming Boom in Gene Therapy Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Eisenman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gene Therapy ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regulatory Environment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Regulatory Structure ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
Current State ◽  
Therapy Field

Introduction: A dramatic increase in the number of clinical trials involving gene-modified cell therapy and gene therapy is taking place. The field is on the verge of a boom, and the regulatory environment is evolving to accommodate the growth. Discussion: This commentary summarizes the current state of the field, including an overview of the growth. The United States (US) regulatory structure for gene therapy will be summarized, and the evolution of the oversight structure will be explained. Conclusion: The gene therapy field has recently produced its first FDA-approved therapeutics and has a pipeline of other investigational products in the final stages of clinical trials before they can be evaluated by the FDA as safe and effective therapeutics. As research continues to evolve, so must the oversight structure. Biosafety professionals and IBCs have always played key roles in contributing to the safe, evidence-based advancement of gene therapy research. With the recent regulatory changes and current surge in gene therapy research, the importance of those roles has increased dramatically.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document