scholarly journals Privacy Protection and Genetic Research: Where Does the Public Interest Lie?

2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ubaka Ogbogu ◽  
Sarah Burningham

There is significant public interest in the outcomes of genetic research. However, there is also a great deal of concern that genetic research and associated realms will foster the use and disclosure of personal health and genetic information in ways that undermine protected privacy interests. This article proposes that a balance must be struck between legitimate public interests implicated in the collection, use, and disclosure of genetic information for research purposes. The article also explores the tension between the public interest in genetic research and the protection of individual privacy in relation to different policy regimes and reviews existing statutory rules, case law, and administrative decisions on the public interest exception in Canadian privacy law.

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lee

AbstractThe relevance of public interests in private law is at the heart of some central divides in tort scholarship. This paper argues that public interests pervade private nuisance cases. The uncertain and contested nature of public interests, and the absence in both the case law and the scholarly literature of an abstract definition of what is to count as a public interest, do not prevent these matters from playing a significant role in tort. In these circumstances, it is important to reflect on how we might set about articulating the public interest. This paper argues that administrative decisions that are intended to serve the public interest can in some cases provide a defensible vision of public interest for the purposes of private law. An examination of the process by which regulatory decisions were reached can provide indicators to assist in identifying and evaluating the strength of claimed public interests.


1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 415
Author(s):  
Jae Lemin

This article reflects on the privacy and public interest issues raised by the publication of an index of paedophiles and sex offenders. The legislation and caselaw of other jurisdictions is investigated to assess the relevance of that experience to any reform of the law in New Zealand. The article uses Deborah Coddington The 1996 Paedophile and Sex Offender Index (Alister Taylor Publishers Pty Ltd, Auckland, 1996) as a starting point to explore the balancing of the public's right to know about an individual with that individual's right to privacy. The author first outlines the information in Coddington's book and the responses it has received. The article then discusses whether the information could be regarded as private at all; special emphasis is placed on the issues arising from a claim under the tort of privacy. The author then examines the persuasiveness of the public interests involved in publication and whether they could be considered strong enough to outweigh privacy concerns. Finally, the article describes some notification schemes overseas and how they attempt to protect the community while minimising infringements on privacy. This article suggests that a balancing exercise between the interests of sex offenders and the interests of the community results in a need to take greater care before general dissemination of information of this nature. 


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dewi Rosiana ◽  
Achmad Djunaidi ◽  
Indun Lestari Setyono ◽  
Wilis Srisayekti

This study aims to describe the effect of sanctions (individual sanctions, collective sanctions, and absence of sanctions) on cooperative behavior of individuals with medium trust in the context of corruption. Both collective sanctions and individual sanctions, are systemic, which means sanctioning behavior is exercised not by each individual but by the system. Cooperative behavior in this context means choosing to obey rules, to reject acts of corruption and to prioritize public interests rather than the personal interests. Conversely, corruption is an uncooperative behavior to the rules, and ignores the public interest and prioritizes personal interests. Research subjects were 62 students. The Chi-Square Analysis was used to see the association between the variables and the logistic regression model was applied to describe the structure of this association. Individual sanction is recommended as punishment to medium trust individuals to promote cooperative behavior in the context of corruption. The results showed that individuals with medium trust had more cooperative behavior.


2011 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20
Author(s):  
Rhonda Breit

A new uniform defamation regime now operates in Australia. This article canvasses the Uniform Defamation Laws (UDLs), focusing on the defence of qualified privilege and its capacity to protect mass media publications in the public interest. Drawing on case law and analysis of the key approaches to statutory privilege, the article evaluates the current approach to statutory qualified privilege. Taking account of observations in O'Hara v Sims (2008, 2009) about the operation of qualified privilege, it questions whether the UDL statutory qualified privilege will ultimately censor publications in the public interest and restrict the application of the qualified privilege defence.


Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Taylor ◽  
Tess Whitton

The United Kingdom’s Data Protection Act 2018 introduces a new public interest test applicable to the research processing of personal health data. The need for interpretation and application of this new safeguard creates a further opportunity to craft a health data governance landscape deserving of public trust and confidence. At the minimum, to constitute a positive contribution, the new test must be capable of distinguishing between instances of health research that are in the public interest, from those that are not, in a meaningful, predictable and reproducible manner. In this article, we derive from the literature on theories of public interest a concept of public interest capable of supporting such a test. Its application can defend the position under data protection law that allows a legal route through to processing personal health data for research purposes that does not require individual consent. However, its adoption would also entail that the public interest test in the 2018 Act could only be met if all practicable steps are taken to maximise preservation of individual control over the use of personal health data for research purposes. This would require that consent is sought where practicable and objection respected in almost all circumstances. Importantly, we suggest that an advantage of relying upon this concept of the public interest, to ground the test introduced by the 2018 Act, is that it may work to promote the social legitimacy of data protection legislation and the research processing that it authorises without individual consent (and occasionally in the face of explicit objection).


Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 504-531
Author(s):  
Jelena Jerinić

Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) opened a possibility for broadening the standing in administrative procedures and administrative disputes, by inclusion of subjects representing collective interests and interest of the wider public - primarily, citizen associations and similar organizations. However, by failing to regulate a series of concrete issues, the Law places the administration and the Administrative Court before a challenge, demanding from them an extensive interpretation of not only LGAP's provisions, but other legislation already recognizing such organizations as AIDS in realization of the public interest. The author analyzes relevant legislation, as well as available administrative and court caselaw in search of these answers. The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court. Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party. Instead, completely new notions have been introduced - collective interests and the wider interests of the public - which are not or not consistently defined in Serbian law. The current, not so voluminous case law, shows that the administrative bodies need a more direct indication of the rules, i.e. a more explicit definitions of these terms. However, despite the restrictive legal framework, administrative bodies should be open to understanding the specific circumstances, i.e. the motivation that an organization has when it seeks standing. In the normative sphere, one of the solutions could be to envisage the analogous application of LGAP's provisions on the interested party. Other solutions could be sought in explicitly mentioning them in the provisions on right to appeal. The current formulations of LGAP do not provide sufficient guidance to the administration and an extensive interpretation would be a great challenge for them. An active approach of the Administrative Court could show the way for the administration toward and effective application of these provisions of LGAP.


Author(s):  
A.P. Ushakova ◽  

From the standpoint of the dominant interest criterion the article examines the justification of the legislator`s decision to apply public law methods in order to regulate relations concerning the use of land for infrastructural facilities placing. The author gives the arguments in favor of understanding the public interest as the interest of the whole society as a system, rather than the interest of an indefinite range of persons or the majority of the population. The author concludes that there is the simultaneous presence in the specified legal relations and private interests of the participants of legal relations, and public interests of society as a system. Both types of interests in these legal relations are important, but in terms of different aspects of the legal impact mechanism. Public interest is important because its realization is the purpose of legal regulation of this type of legal relations, from this point of view it acts as a dominant interest. The private interest of the holder of a public servitude is important as an incentive to attract the efforts of private individuals to achieve a publicly significant goal. The private interest of a land plot owner is important from the point of view of securing the right of ownership. It is substantiated that the public servitude is not an arbitrary decision of the legislator, but an example of application of the incentive method in the land law, which provides a favorable legal regime for a socially useful activity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Karanikić Mirić ◽  
Tatjana Jevremović Petrović

The subject of this paper is the special legal regime for administrative contracts under the recently enacted Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure of 2016. We offer a comprehensive analysis of the new statutory rules, and examine their relationship to the general rules and principles of Serbian contract law. In addition, we identify the main shortcomings of the new regime, especially in the context of the lack of any statutory, scholarly and judicial typology of administrative contracts in Serbia. Furthermore, we highlight the lack of references to the notions of public interest, public purpose or public needs in the statutory definition of administrative contracts. This is cause for concern, since only the need to protect the public interest could justify the new statutory provisions, which significantly improve the contractual position of a public body as a contracting party in relation to the position of a private entity as the other party in administrative contracts. There is as yet no case law pertaining to administrative contracts in Serbia. This is why we turn to practical experience in the Croatian legal system, which is sufficiently similar and historically connected to Serbia via a shared Yugoslav heritage. We also consider German and French legal models, since they traditionally serve as comparative points of reference for Serbian legal scholars, judges and law makers.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme Laurie ◽  
Pierre Mallia ◽  
David A. Frenkel ◽  
Atina Krajewska ◽  
Helena Moniz ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-939
Author(s):  
Renato Vrenčur ◽  
Michael Knaus ◽  
Matjaž Tratnik

Servitudes (easements) traditionally include the right to use foreign property. Specific types of servitudes are servitudes in the public interest. These are set up either in favour of the state, municipalities or operators of utilities. These servitudes are subject to some specific rules. For example, servitude in the public interest is established to carry out an undertaking for the operation of economic activity, i.e. to pursue public interests. It is needed for the duration of the use of public infrastructure; therefore, Article 227 of SPZ, under which a servitude may only be established for a limited duration of not more than thirty years, is not suitable for these servitudes. Furthermore, these servitudes are not independently transferable; they are transferred together with the right to operate economic public infrastructure. The authors discuss in particular the specific legal nature of a servitude in the public interest.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document