Ethical considerations in post-GDPR social media based research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Granger ◽  
Peter Branney ◽  
Paul Sullivan ◽  
Steven McDermott

With the number of social media users being recently estimated to be around 3.96 billion, social media sites present a vast pool of potential participants and data for researchers. Reflecting the growth of this technology and volume of data, data protection laws have been updated across the European Union (EU) and apply to the movement of data in and out of the EU. This article discusses how to approach ethical considerations in light of these new laws and the ethos they represent. We provide this in the context of collecting Twitter data for a pilot study and discuss the considerations in line with legal and ethical guidelines. Our decided approach is offered as an example of the outcome of such considerations. It is clear from this discussion that any approach to ethics, particularly where social media is concerned, requires a reflective and tailored approach.

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuner

The European Union (EU) has supported the growing calls for the creation of an international legal framework to safeguard data protection rights. At the same time, it has worked to spread its data protection law to other regions, and recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have reaffirmed the autonomous nature of EU law and the primacy of EU fundamental rights law. The tension between initiatives to create a global data protection framework and the assertion of EU data protection law raises questions about how the EU can best promote data protection on a global level, and about the EU’s responsibilities to third countries that have adopted its system of data protection.


2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-494
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Zell

With the negotiation of its Data Protection Regulation, the European Union seeks to reform an outdated set of laws that has failed to address the evolving data protection challenges inherent in new technologies such as social networks, e-commerce, cloud computing, and location-based services. This article addresses the forthcoming Data Protection Regulation as well as the current state of data protection law in the EU, with a particular focus on Germany. The first part of the article examines Germany's robust data protection framework and the EU's existing authority. The article then raises key issues related to data protection in Germany and the EU—namely, discrepancies in data protection standards and enforcement among EU Member States—as illustrated by recent, high profile cases involving household names like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Through this analysis, the article attempts to explain how and why companies doing business in Germany, but established in other EU Member States, are subject to less stringent data protection standards than German companies. Lastly, the article synthesizes the issues in debate with regard to the draft Data Protection Regulation and offers perspectives on what the Regulation could and should mean for data protection in the EU.


Author(s):  
Fabiana Accardo

The purpose of this article is that to explain the impact of the landmark decision Schrems c. Data Protection Commissioner [Ireland] - delivered on 7 October 2015 (Case C-362/2014 EU) by the Court of Justice - on the European scenario. Starting from a brief analysis of the major outcomes originated from the pronunciation of the Court of Justice, then it tries to study the level of criticality that the Safe Harbor Agreement and the subsequently adequacy Commission decision 2000/520/EC – that has been invalidated with Schrems judgment – have provoked before this pronunciation on the matter of safeguarding personal privacy of european citizens when their personal data are transferred outside the European Union, in particular the reference is at the US context. Moreover it focuses on the most important aspects of the new EU-US agreement called Privacy Shield: it can be really considered the safer solution for data sharing in the light of the closer implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, which will take the place of the Directive 95 /46/CE on the EU data protection law?


Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter

The right to be forgotten is an emerging legal concept allowing individuals control over their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain results. The right has been supported by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries, among others. The right is primarily grounded in notions of privacy and data protection but also relates to intellectual property, reputation, and right of publicity. Scholars and courts cite, as an intellectual if not legal root for the right to be forgotten, the legal principle that convicted criminals whose sentences are completed should not continually be publicly linked with their crimes. Critics contend that the right to be forgotten stands in conflict with freedom of expression and can lead to revisionist history. Scholars and others in the southern cone of South America, in particular, have decried the right to be forgotten because it could allow perpetrators of mass human rights abuses to cover up or obscure their atrocities. On the other hand, those in favor of the right to be forgotten say that digital technology preserves memory unnaturally and can impede forgiveness and individual progress. The right to be forgotten debate is far from resolved and poses difficult questions about access to, and control of, large amounts of digital information across national borders. Given the global nature of the Internet and the ubiquity of certain powerful search engines, the questions at issue are universal, but solutions thus far have been piecemeal. Although a 2014 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) garnered much attention, the right to be forgotten has been largely shaped by a 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. In 2016, the EU adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation that will take effect in 2018 and could have a major impact because it contains an explicit right to be forgotten (also called right to erasure). The new regulation does not focus on the theoretical or philosophical justification for a right to be forgotten, and it appears likely the debate over the right in the EU and beyond will not be resolved even when the new rule takes effect.


Author(s):  
Nóra Ní Loideain

The focus of this chapter is the first evaluation of European legislation designed to harmonise domestic laws on the retention of telecommunications data for the purpose of assisting law enforcement efforts. The European Union introduced the EC Data Retention Directive in 2006. This Directive requires the retention of every European citizen’s communications data for up to two years for the purpose of investigation, detection, and prosecution of serious crime, as defined by each Member State in their domestic legislation. The Directive was the source of considerable unease amongst legislators, Data Protection authorities, and the private sector. This chapter analyses the results provided in this evaluation on the use and operation of the Directive by individual Member States of the EU.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-459
Author(s):  
Maja Šimunjak ◽  
Alessandro Caliandro

This study examines the ways in which and reasons why the remaining Member States of the European Union, the EU 27, communicated about Brexit on the most popular social media in politics – Twitter, by drawing on a multi method examination of UK-based EU 27 diplomatic entities’ Twitter practices during the process of Brexit negotiations. The findings suggest that the EU 27 maintained message consistency on the topic of Brexit on Twitter, supporting the EU’s negotiating position, demonstrating internal cohesiveness and potentially contributing to the EU’s effectiveness in the Brexit negotiations. Our study also reveals that the framing of Brexit on Twitter was deliberate and strategic, but with a range of different motivations behind the promotion of certain frames. Finally, Twitter is seen by diplomats as a tool conducive to meeting public diplomacy’s aim of relationship-building, but not one to be used for advocacy and influencing interpretation of controversial Brexit issues.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 99-110
Author(s):  
Paloma Krõõt Tupay ◽  
Martin Ebers ◽  
Jakob Juksaar ◽  
Kea Kohv

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is, together with its seven principles, designed to function as the cornerstone of data protection in the European Union. Although the GDPR was meant to keep up with technological and socioeconomic changes while guaranteeing fundamental rights, its unclear wording with regard to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has led to uncertainty. Therefore, the development and application of ever new AI systems raises various, as yet unresolved questions. Moreover, the complexity of legal requirements poses the risk of inhibiting AI innovation in the European Union. On the other hand, the GDPR gives Member States certain leeway to regulate data processing by public authorities. Therefore, data protection requirements for AI systems in public administration must be assessed under both the GDPR and national law. Against this backdrop, the article aims to guide the reader through the relevant data-protection rules applicable to AI systems in both the EU and in Estonia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Ralf Kneuper

In May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR 2016) came into effect in the European Union (EU), defining requirements on how to handle personal data of EU citizens. This report discusses the effects of this regulation on software development organisations outside the EU, and summaries the software requirements that result from GDPR and therefore apply to most information technology (IT) systems that will handle data of individuals based in the EU.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Oskar Josef GSTREIN

On 20 May 2021, the European Commission, Council and Parliament announced a breakthrough in the trialogue negotiations to establish the European Union (EU) Digital COVID Certificate. Originally, this standardisation effort was labelled as “Digital Green Certificate” and – “[i]n view of the urgency” – presented without a data protection impact assessment. It should allow citizens and residents of Member States to prove that they are either vaccinated against COVID-19, have recently tested negative or are currently immune against the virus. This article considers the proposal from a privacy perspective, taking into account the opinion of EU data protection authorities, ongoing negotiations in the EU institutions and relevant developments on the national and international level. While the European Parliament and others tried to improve the original Commission proposal, questions around the appropriateness and effectiveness of the framework remain. The technological and organisational implementation is essentially left to Member States, who already have started to develop their own tracing and identification systems.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (34) ◽  
pp. 119-138
Author(s):  
Stephen O’Neill

This article considers how Shakespeare’s King Lear has become a Brexit play across a range of discourses and media, from theatre productions and journalism to social media. With its themes of division and disbursement, of cliff edges and tragic self-immolation, Lear is the Shakespearean play that has been turned to as metaphor and analogy for the UK’s decision following the 23 June 2016 referendum to leave the European Union. Reading this presentist application of Shakespeare, the article attends to Shakespeare as itself a discourse through which cultural ideas, both real and imaginary, about Brexit and the EU are negotiated. It asks how can we might remap Lear in this present context―what other meanings and histories are to be derived from the play, especially in Lear’s exile and search for refuge, or in Cordelia’s departure for and return from France? Moving from a consideration of a Brexit Lear to an archipelagic and even European Lear, this article argues that Shakespeare is simultaneously a site of supranational connections and of a desire for values of empathy and refuge that reverberate with debates about migration in Europe.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document