scholarly journals A RESPONSABILIDADE CIVIL DAS EMPRESAS GIGANTES DA INTERNET

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-186
Author(s):  
Olivera Boskovic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
General Application ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Focus Theory

Objective ”“ The article offers an original contribution to the debate about the application of substantive law and the eligible jurisdiction that should judge the liabilities disputes between the so-called Internet giants' enterprises and the users. Methodology/approach/design ”“ The article brings a bibliographical and case law review of both France and the European Union about International Private Law applicable to the liability violations made by the so-called Internet giants' enterprises. Findings ”“ The article shows a legal theory central problem, which is the best way to define both the substantive law and the jurisdiction that should judge transfrontier liabilities in legal cases. The best solution would be to apply the so-called focus theory, i.e. the application of the substantive law and the jurisdiction following the local where the damage happens. Notwithstanding, this general application of the focus theory could impose limits on the future substantive reparation that the courts may grant to the victims. Besides, such general application collides with the traditional forum selection clauses that the giant Internet firms usually use to demand that the judgment of liability lawsuits solely by the United States courts. Practical implications ”“ The article is an important introduction to the choice of substantive law and jurisdiction applicable to the liability lawsuits filed against the giant Internet enterprises. This debate has a clear practical application that will become more important as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enters in force and prescribes its transfrontier application. Originality/value ”“ The article enlightens a very important legal debate about the European Union Law that has some regulations (Rome I, Rome II, and Brussels I) to prescribe what substantive law and which jurisdiction may be of use to judge civil liability violations. This legal debate will grow in importance since the GDPR will give motives to a whole lot of new lawsuits about data protection.

scholarly journals Artificial intelligence, Digital Single Market and the proposal of a right to fair and reasonable inferences: a legal issue between ethics and techniques

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-91
Author(s):  
Alexandre Veronese ◽  
Alessandra Silveira ◽  
Amanda Nunes Lopes Espiñeira Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Legal Issue ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation

The article discusses the ethical and technical consequences of Artificial intelligence (hereinafter, A.I) applications and their usage of the European Union data protection legal framework to enable citizens to defend themselves against them. This goal is under the larger European Union Digital Single Market policy, which has concerns about how this subject correlates with personal data protection. The article has four sections. The first one introduces the main issue by describing the importance of AI applications in the contemporary world scenario. The second one describes some fundamental concepts about AI. The third section has an analysis of the ongoing policies for AI in the European Union and the Council of Europe proposal about ethics applicable to AI in the judicial systems. The fourth section is the conclusion, which debates the current legal mechanisms for citizens protection against fully automated decisions, based on European Union Law and in particular the General Data Protection Regulation. The conclusion will be that European Union Law is still under construction when it comes to providing effective protection to its citizens against automated inferences that are unfair or unreasonable.

European Union Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Part Structure ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Substantive Law

European Union Law uses a distinctive three-part structure to examine the constitutional foundations, legal powers, and substantive law of the European Union. This third edition includes an updated dedicated chapter on the past, present, and future of Brexit. Part I looks at the constitutional foundations including a constitutional history and an examination of the governmental structure of the European Union. Part II looks at governmental powers. It covers legislative, external, executive, judicial, and limiting powers. The final part considers substantive law. It starts off by examining the free movement of goods, services, and persons. It then turns to competition law and finally ends with an analysis of internal and external policies.

scholarly journals Data Sharing Under the General Data Protection Regulation

Hypertension ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 1029-1035
Author(s):  
Antonia Vlahou ◽  
Dara Hallinan ◽  
Rolf Apweiler ◽  
Angel Argiles ◽  
Joachim Beige ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
General Data ◽  
Almost All

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

Human rights and biometric data. Social credit system

2020 ◽  
pp. 36-50
Author(s):  
Olga O. Bazina
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Credit System ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Social Credit ◽  
The Social

Biometrics, as a field of science, analyzes the physical and behavioral characteristics of people in order to identify their personality. A huge amount of technology in the field of biometric data collection is developed by IT giants like Google, Facebook, or Alibaba. The European Union (EU) took an important step towards biometric data confidentiality by developing a unified law on the protection of personal data (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR). The main goal of this action is to return control over personal data to European citizens and at the same time simplify the regulatory legal basis for companies. While European countries and organisations are introducing the GDPR into force, China since 2016 has launched a social credit system as a pilot project. The Social Credit Score (SCS) is based on collecting the maximum amount of data about citizens and assessing the reliability of residents based on their financial, social and online behavior. Only critical opinions can be read about the social credit system in European literature, although the opinions of persons being under this system – Chinese citizens – are quite positive. In this context, we should not forget about the big difference in the mentality of Asians and Europeans. The aim of this article is to compare EU law and the legislation of the People's Republic of China regarding the use and storage of biometric data. On the basis of statistical data and materials analysed, key conclusions will be formulated, that will allow to indicate differences in the positions of state institutions and the attitude of citizens to the issue of personal data protection in China and the European Union.

The Second Internet: The Brussels Bourgeois Internet

2021 ◽  
pp. 77-91
Author(s):  
Kieron O’Hara
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Space ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Internet Privacy ◽  
Data Protection Directive ◽  
General Data ◽  
Data Protection Law

This chapter describes the Brussels Bourgeois Internet. The ideal consists of positive, managed liberty where rights of others are respected, as in the bourgeois public space, where liberty follows only when rights are secured. The exemplar of this approach is the European Union, which uses administrative means, soft law, and regulation to project its vision across the Internet. Privacy and data protection have become the most emblematic struggles. Under the Data Protection Directive of 1995, the European Union developed data-protection law and numerous privacy rights, including a right to be forgotten, won in a case against Google Spain in 2014, the arguments about which are dissected. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) followed in 2018, amplifying this approach. GDPR is having the effect of enforcing European data-protection law on international players (the ‘Brussels effect’), while the European Union over the years has developed unmatched expertise in data-protection law.

scholarly journals Data protection and ethics requirements for multisite research with health data: a comparative examination of legislative governance frameworks and the role of data protection technologies†

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James Scheibner ◽  
Marcello Ienca ◽  
Sotiria Kechagia ◽  
Juan Ramon Troncoso-Pastoriza ◽  
Jean Louis Raisaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Homomorphic Encryption ◽  
Personalised Medicine ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Data Accessibility ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation

Abstract Personalised medicine can improve both public and individual health by providing targeted preventative and therapeutic healthcare. However, patient health data must be shared between institutions and across jurisdictions for the benefits of personalised medicine to be realised. Whilst data protection, privacy, and research ethics laws protect patient confidentiality and safety they also may impede multisite research, particularly across jurisdictions. Accordingly, we compare the concept of data accessibility in data protection and research ethics laws across seven jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Switzerland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (which have implemented the General Data Protection Regulation), the United States, Canada, and Australia. Our paper identifies the requirements for consent, the standards for anonymisation or pseudonymisation, and adequacy of protection between jurisdictions as barriers for sharing. We also identify differences between the European Union and other jurisdictions as a significant barrier for data accessibility in cross jurisdictional multisite research. Our paper concludes by considering solutions to overcome these legislative differences. These solutions include data transfer agreements and organisational collaborations designed to `front load' the process of ethics approval, so that subsequent research protocols are standardised. We also allude to technical solutions, such as distributed computing, secure multiparty computation and homomorphic encryption.

scholarly journals Facial recognition in police hands: Assessing the ‘Clearview case’ from a European perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-389
Author(s):  
Isadora Neroni Rezende
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Facial Recognition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies

Since 2019, over 600 law enforcement agencies across the United States have started using a groundbreaking facial recognition app designed by Clearview AI, a tech start-up which now plans to market its technology also in Europe. While the Clearview app is an expression of the wider phenomenon of the repurposing of privately held data in the law enforcement context, its use in criminal proceedings is likely to encroach on individuals’ rights in unprecedented ways. Indeed, the Clearview app goes far beyond traditional facial recognition tools. If these have been historically limited to matching government-stored images, Clearview now combines its technology with a database of over three billion images published on the Internet. Against this background, this article will review the use of this new investigative tool in light of the European Union (EU) legal framework on privacy and data protection. The proposed assessment will proceed as follows. Firstly, it will briefly assess the lawfulness of Clearview AI’s data scraping practices under the General Data Protection Regulation. Secondly, it will discuss the transfer of scraped data from the company to EU law enforcement agencies under the regime of the Directive 2016/680/EU (the Directive). Finally, it will analyse the compliance of the Clearview app with art 10 of the Police Directive, which lays down the criteria for lawful processing of biometric data. More specifically, this last analysis will focus on the strict necessity test, as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this assessment, it will be argued that the Clearview app’s use in criminal proceedings is highly problematic in light of the EU legislation on privacy and data protection.

scholarly journals A Weaponized Court of Justice in Schrems II

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Jeffery Atik ◽  
Xavier Groussot
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Data ◽  
The U.S

The U.S.-EU conflict over the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to U.S.-based digital platform companies is marked by a startling legal development: the insertion of a constitutional court squarely into the heart of the dispute. The engagement of the EU’s top court - the Court of Justice (CJEU) - in the Schrems I and Schrems II cases - has significantly inflamed the dispute. The CJEU has now twice struck down GDPR accommodations reached between the United States and the European Union. In doing so, the Court has rebuked both U.S. and EU officials. By transfiguring provisions of the GDPR with constitutional (that is, treaty-based) and human rights values, the Court has placed out of reach any accommodation that does not involve significant reform of U.S. privacy and national security provisions. Heated trans-Atlantic disputes involving assertions of extraterritorial extensions of regulatory power is an inappropriate place for a constitutional court like the CJEU to throw its declarative weight around. 

scholarly journals GDPR implementation as the main reason for the regional fragmentation in the online mediasphere

2021 ◽  
Vol 273 ◽  
pp. 08099
Author(s):  
Mikhail Smolenskiy ◽  
Nikolay Levshin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Main Role ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
The Usa ◽  
General Data

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies not only to the territory of the European Union, but also to all information systems containing data of EU’s citizens around the world. Misusing or carelessly handling personal data bring fines of up to 20 million euros or 4% of the annual turnover of the offending company. This article analyzes the main trends in the global implementation of the GDPR. Authors considered and analyzed results of personal data protection measures in nineteen regions: The USA, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia, South Korea and Thailand, as well as the European Union and a handful of other. This allowed identifying a direct pattern between the global tightening of EU’s citizens personal data protection and the fragmentation of the global mediasphere into separate national segments. As a result of the study, the authors conclude that GDPR has finally slowed down the globalization of the online mediasphere, playing a main role in its regional fragmentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document