Data Protection

2013 ◽  
pp. 208-215
Author(s):  
Rajinder Kaur ◽  
Prabal Mehrotra
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Information Technology ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Tamil Nadu ◽  
Uttar Pradesh ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

The right to privacy, characterised by Justice Brandeis in Olmestead v. United States (1928)277 US 438 as the “right to be let alone: the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilised men,” is recognized under India’s constitution by the Supreme Court in four rulings: Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1295; Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (1975)2 SCC 148; R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1994)6 SCC 632; and District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Anr. v. Canara Bank (2005)1 SCC 496.1 This aim of this chapter is to analyze the legislative provisions prevalent in India, especially those afforded by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India, and also the legislative provisions accorded to data protection in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, so as to be able to reach a conclusion that will address the need for data protection law(s).

scholarly journals Data protection rules in the united states legal system

2020 ◽  
pp. 481-484
Author(s):  
Araz Poladov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right

Purpose of research: define the general characteristics of the protection of personal data; analysis of legislation and case law.Methods of research: analysis and study of regulatory documents containing provisions on protection of personal data.Results: normative and practical importance of personal data protection provisions in various legal acts has been underscored.The right to privacy strengthened its position in the United States in the late 19th century and is now recognized by most States.Although the right to privacy in the United States was originally a British political legacy, judicial decisions in England were more conservativeand cautious than those of U.S. courts. One of the important features of this law in the Anglo-Saxon legal system is that itwas previously formed by judicial precedents and legal doctrine. Also, the right to privacy was not among the rights provided for in theBill of Rights. In general, there is an industry-wide approach to data privacy in the United States. There is no specific federal law thatwould guarantee the confidentiality and protection of personal data. Instead, legislation at the federal level is dispersed and aims to protectdata in certain sectors. Judicial practice and court decisions taken at different times play an important role in regulating personaldata protection in the United States. It is also worth mentioning that until the 1970s, decisions of the U.S. courts did not provide thenecessary privacy protection safeguards.Discussion: offering a comprehensive and detailed study and use of this practice in other states.

scholarly journals Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. Lecture Series on Law and Justice Speak at Your Own Peril

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Greenaway
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
Public Order ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Protections

AbstractThis lecture given at Birmingham City University School of Law, March 21, 2019 considers the origins of the right to silence in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and compares the constitutional protections against self-incrimination with those of the United Kingdom. It notes that the effect of the changes introduced by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 is that there is now a fundamental divergence in approach between the two jurisdictions and concludes that as the twenty first century progresses, defendants on both sides of the Atlantic will be less likely to exercise their rights without consequence and then when they do choose to speak it will be at their peril.

Constitutional Law in 1942–1943: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1942

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-288
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
West Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right

On February 15, 1943, Wiley B. Rutledge, Jr., a judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, took the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the resignation in October, 1942, of Mr. Justice Byrnes. There were no other changes in the Court's personnel. Disagreement among the justices abated somewhat. In only a dozen cases of importance did either four or three justices dissent, as against some thirty cases in the last term. The Court overruled two earlier decisions, both recent; and the reversal in each case was made possible by the vote of Mr. Justice Rutledge.A. QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL POWER1. WAR POWER-CIVIL VERSUS MILITARY AUTHORITYWest Coast Curfew Applied to Japanese-American Citizens. In February, 1942, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066, which authorized the creation of military areas from which any or all persons might be excluded and with respect to which the right of persons to enter, remain in, or leave should be subject to such regulations as the military authorities might prescribe. On March 2, the entire West Coast to an average depth of forty miles was set up as Military Area No. 1 by the Commanding General in that area, and the intention was announced to evacuate from it persons of suspected loyalty, alien enemies, and all persons, aliens and citizens alike, of Japanese ancestry.

scholarly journals State Legislatures Have the Courage to Pass Antiabortion Laws and Test the Ideology of the “New” United States Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-150
Author(s):  
Jill Oeding
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Undue Burden ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
The Right

Many state legislatures are racing to pass antiabortion laws that will give the current Supreme Court the opportunity to review its stance on the alleged constitutional right to have an abortion. While the number of abortions reported to be performed annually in the United States has declined over the last decade, according to the most recent government-reported data, the number of abortions performed on an annual basis is still over 600,000 per year. Abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973, when the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to have an abortion prior to viability (i.e. the time when a baby could possibly live outside the mother’s womb). States currently have the right to forbid abortions after viability.  However, prior to viability, states may not place an “undue burden” in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. The recent appointments of two new Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanaugh, give pro-life states the best chance in decades to overrule the current abortion precedent. The question is whether these two new justices will shift the ideology of the court enough to overrule the current abortion precedent.

scholarly journals Evoluzione della giurisprudenza costituzionale statunitense in materia d’aborto (II)

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Persano
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Single Case ◽  
The United States ◽  
Planned Parenthood ◽  
Abortion Debate ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

Negli Stati Uniti il dibattito sull’aborto è sempre un tema molto caldo. Questo saggio, diviso in due parti (la prima parte è stata pubblicata sul precedente numero della rivista) prova a ripercorrere l’evoluzione della giurisprudenza costituzionale statunitense in materia d’aborto, evidenziando i cambiamenti che ciascuna decisione ha apportato al quadro giuridico precedente. In questa seconda parte, la dissertazione sui singoli casi giurisprudenziali decisi dalla Suprema Corte prosegue con il caso Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Esso è stato una vera occasione mancata nella storia dell’aborto negli Stati Uniti, perchè venne sfiorata la overrule di Roe v. Wade. Ciononostante, venne sostanzialmente confermato l’impianto delle decisioni precedenti, in considerazione del fatto che una decisione contraria all’aborto avrebbe spiazzato un popolo che per decenni aveva organizzato la propria vita in funzione anche della possibilità di abortire. Con questa decisione si distinse la gravidanza in due periodi: quello della pre-viabilità, in cui la donna era completamente libera di abortire in accordo col medico; quello della post-viabilità, in cui gli Stati avrebbero potuto legiferare, pur dovendo consentire l’aborto nel caso di pericolo per la vita o la salute della madre. Inoltre il diritto d’aborto venne radicato nella libertà riconosciuta nel XIV Emendamento della Costituzione. Nel successivo caso Stenberg v. Carhart fu oggetto di giudizio l’aborto a nascita parziale: una legge del Nebraska aveva bandito questa pratica, ma la legge fu annullata dalla Corte Suprema, nonostante il duro dissenso di ben quattro giudici, fra cui Anthony Kennedy. Successivamente a questa decisione, il Congresso prese l’iniziativa di emanare il Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Questa legge fu impugnata in via d’azione davanti alla Corte Suprema e ne scaturì la sentenza Gonzalez v. Carhart. In questa decisione la Corte fece un passo indietro rispetto a Stenberg, affermò la legittimità del bando, sostenne che l’aborto a nascita parziale non è mai necessario per tutelare la vita della donna e che Stenberg era fondato su convinzioni erronee sul punto. Il saggio si conclude con delle interessanti considerazioni in merito ai possibili sviluppi futuri circa il tema dell’aborto negli Stati Uniti, auspica la “liberalizzazione del diritto alla vita” ed avanza una originale proposta, valida per tutti i Paesi in cui l’aborto è legalizzato. ---------- Abortion debate is always a hot subject in the United States. This essay, divided into two parts (the first part has been published on the previous issue of this review) tries to go along the development of U.S. constitutional caselaw about abortion, pointing out the change that each judgement caused to the previous law framework. In this second part, the dissertation about U.S. Supreme Court single case-law goes on by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was a real missed occasion in the abortion affair in the United States, because it was on the verge of overruling Roe v. Wade. However, the framework of the previous cases was substantially confirmed, considering that a decision against abortion would place out people who for a long time organized their own life in connection to the right of abortion. By this judgement, pregnancy was divided into two periods: pre-viability, when woman was completely free to have an abortion in agreement with her doctor; post-viability, when States could restrict abortion, except for woman life or health risks. Moreover, abortion right was founded on liberty, acknowledged by XIV Amendement. In the following case Gonzalez v. Carhart, partial-birth abortion was judged: a statute of Nebraska banned this activity, but it was stroked down by Supreme Court, despite of the dissenting opinion of four judges (Anthony Kennedy was one of them). After this judgement, the Congress wanted to issue Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This statute was pre-enforcement challenged to the Supreme Court, and Gonzalez v. Carhart was poured. In this judgment, the Court drew back Stenberg, it stated the ban was legitimate, partial-birth abortion never is necessary to safeguard woman health, and Stenberg was founded on wrong beliefs on this matter. This essay concludes with interesting considerations about possible developments about abortion affair in the United States, wishes “liberty of right to life” and proposes a solution for all the countries where abortion is legal.

scholarly journals RESPONSABILIDADE EM FACE DE PIQUETE NA JURISPRUDÊNCIA NORTE-AMERICANA

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 499
Author(s):  
Edilton MEIRELES
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Deductive Method ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

RESUMONeste trabalho tratamos do direito de manifestação em piquetes e da responsabilidade que possa advir desses atos em face da jurisprudência da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América. A partir da análise das principais decisões da Suprema Corte se pode concluir que, de modo geral, os participantes do piquete não respondem quando agem de forma não ilegal. Está sedimentado, no entanto, o entendimento de que o organizador do piquete responde pelos atos dos participantes. A pesquisa desenvolvida se justifica enquanto estudo comparativo e diante do pouco debate existente no Brasil a respeito do tema. Na pesquisa foi utilizado o método dedutivo, limitada à ciência dogmática do direito, com estudo de casos apreciados pelo judiciário. PALAVRAS-CHAVES: Responsabilidade; Piquete; Estados Unidos; Suprema Corte; Liberdade De Expressão. ABSTRACTIn this work we deal with the right of demonstration in pickets and the responsibility that may arise from these acts in the face of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. From the analysis of the Supreme Court's main decisions it can be concluded that, in general, the picket participants do not respond when they act in a non-illegal way. It is settled, however, the understanding that the picket organizer responds by the acts of the participants. The research developed is justified as a comparative study and in view of the little debate that exists in Brazil regarding the subject. In the research was used the deductive method, limited to the dogmatic science of law, with study of cases appreciated by the judiciary.KEYWORDS: Responsibility; Picket; United States; Supreme Court; Freedom Of Expression.

The Right to Know in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

It was acknowledged in the 1997 White Paper Your Right To Know that the United Kingdom could learn much from the experience of other countries with established FOI regimes. The draftsman of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 had regard to the statutory schemes of five such countries whose jurisprudence has precedent value in our courts: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States. Chapter 25 looks at their different approaches to the fundamental elements of any FOI regime, and gives examples of how their courts have interpreted and applied the respective statutes. The chapter notes common themes and recurrent sources of controversy, notably delays in responding to requests, charges for access, and the position of affected third parties. It traces how the legislation in each country has been adapted over the years, and where there is pressure for yet further reforms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document