The Data Subject

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 258-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Blume
Keyword(s):  
1985 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Steven Sangren

Case studies in local economic history and organization conventionally employ either of two rhetorical strategies. In the first, a particular world view, theoretical orientation, or set of basic categories is assumed and forms the basis for organizing a description of a particular case; in the second, the facts or data are marshaled in an attempt to validate, authenticate, or test an explicitly stated theoretical position. Of course, these are ideal types, and many studies quite appropriately combine both. Progress is conceived as an outcome over time in which both kinds of study contribute to ever more elegant, encompassing, and parsimonious orderings of data. The nature of the relationship between theory, assumptions, world view, and so forth on the one hand, and data, subject, or facts on the other, transcends otherwise widely divergent arguments-for example, “Marxist,” “dependency,” “neoclassical,” and (more subtly) “substantivist.” In short, a common value, broadly “positivist,” informs most Western sociaI science discourse.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174387212110493
Author(s):  
Gordon Hull

This paper situates the data privacy debate in the context of what I call the death of the data subject. My central claim is that concept of a rights-bearing data subject is being pulled in two contradictory directions at once, and that simultaneous attention to these is necessary to understand and resist the extractive practices of the data industry. Specifically, it is necessary to treat the problems facing the data subject structurally, rather than by narrowly attempting to vindicate its rights. On the one hand, the data industry argues that subjects of biometric identification lack legal standing to pursue claims in court, and Facebook recently denied that that its facial recognition software recognizes faces. On the other hand, industry takes consent to terms of service and arbitration clauses to create enforceable legal subject positions, while using promises of personalization to create a phenomenological subject that is unaware of the extent to which it is being manipulated. Data subjects thus have no legal existence when it is a matter of corporate liability, but legal accountability when it is a matter of their own liability. Successful reform should address the power asymmetries between individuals and data companies that enable this structural disempowerment.


Biometrics ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 598-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yahong Peng ◽  
Roderick J. A. Little ◽  
Trivellore E. Raghunathan

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-352
Author(s):  
Paul de Hert ◽  
Cihan Parlar ◽  
Johannes Thumfart

This contribution reflects on recent cases involving cross-border data production orders such as Yahoo Belgium, Skype Belgium and Microsoft Ireland. Cross-border data production orders are found to generally involve conflicts regarding sovereignty and enforcement jurisdiction and to frequently include voluntary cooperation of companies for which the legal framework is lacking (Introduction). The Lotus principle, which recognizes a broad extraterritorial jurisdiction to prescribe and limits extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction, is reconsidered concerning those issues (see the ‘International law pragmatism for jurisdiction to prescribe, but not for jurisdiction to enforce’ section) and the use of mutual legal assistances, which should be the rule, is discussed with four caveats (see the ‘Four caveats to territorial sovereignty and the need for MLAs: Unclarities and politics’ section). Twelve typical arguments are identified, which are employed in courtrooms when cross-border data production orders are discussed, for example, arguments regarding territorial sovereignty, the location of servers, the virtual presence of businesses via the Internet or the nationality of the data subject (see the ‘Arguments in courtrooms in favour or against informal-based cross-border investigations’ section). Subsequently, from fourth to seventh sections, those arguments are investigated regarding their context in the cases Yahoo! Belgium (2007–2015), Skype Belgium (2012–2017), Microsoft Ireland (2013–2018) and Google in re Search Warrant (2017). Finally, a first step to evaluate and test the strength of those arguments is undertaken (see the ‘Assessing the arguments: From logically weak, to unpractical to law enforcement utilitarianism (give us everything)’ section).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document