Digital Copyright Enforcement

2011 ◽  
pp. 241-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Pina
Keyword(s):  
Personal Data ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Digital Copyright ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
P2p Systems ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
On Line ◽  
The Right ◽  
Copyright Enforcement ◽  
Fundamental Values

Copyright and privacy are two fundamental values for a democratic society, since both enhance the development of each individual’s personality. Nevertheless, in cyberspace, copyright enforcement and the right to informational self determination have become two clashing realities. In fact, with the arrival of digital technology, especially the Internet, rightholders, facing massive on-line copyright infringements, mainly by file-sharers on peer-to-peer (P2P) systems, started developing more and more intrusive new enforcement strategies in electronic communications as a means to identify the infringers and the committed infractions. The goal of the present paper is to study, in a context where massive unauthorized uses of copyrighted works is an undeniable reality, how the boundaries between what is public or private become fainter, whether the use of tracking software is consistent with personal data protection legislation, and whether it is possible to reconcile these two human rights.

Digital Copyright Enforcement

2013 ◽  
pp. 1269-1282
Author(s):  
Pedro Pina
Keyword(s):  
Personal Data ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Digital Copyright ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
P2p Systems ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
On Line ◽  
The Right ◽  
Copyright Enforcement ◽  
Fundamental Values

Copyright and privacy are two fundamental values for a democratic society, since both enhance the development of each individual’s personality. Nevertheless, in cyberspace, copyright enforcement and the right to informational self determination have become two clashing realities. In fact, with the arrival of digital technology, especially the Internet, rightholders, facing massive on-line copyright infringements, mainly by file-sharers on peer-to-peer (P2P) systems, started developing more and more intrusive new enforcement strategies in electronic communications as a means to identify the infringers and the committed infractions. The goal of the present paper is to study, in a context where massive unauthorized uses of copyrighted works is an undeniable reality, how the boundaries between what is public or private become fainter, whether the use of tracking software is consistent with personal data protection legislation, and whether it is possible to reconcile these two human rights.

File-Sharing of Copyrighted Works, P2P, and the Cloud

2015 ◽  
pp. 51-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Pina
Keyword(s):  
Storage Systems ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
P2p Systems ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
Copyright Enforcement

In cyberspace, copyright enforcement and privacy rights have become two clashing realities. In fact, with the arrival of digital technology, especially the Internet, right holders, facing massive online infringements to their reproduction or distribution exclusive rights, mainly by file-sharers on Peer-to-Peer (P2P) systems or Cloud storage systems clients, started developing more and more intrusive new enforcement strategies in electronic communications as a means to identify the infringers and the committed infractions. The goal of the chapter is to study how the boundaries between what is public or private become fainter, whether the use of tracking software is consistent with personal data protection legislation, and whether it is possible to reconcile these two human rights, proposing a reflection on a possible extension of the use of levies in order to compensate right holders for private copies originating from unlawful sources.

scholarly journals Consent by GDPR vs. Blockchain

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-166
Author(s):  
Bruno Moslavac
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Method ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Explicit Consent ◽  
Data Processor ◽  
On Line ◽  
A Chain ◽  
The Right

The role of consent in personal data protection today is probably the first question for researches on how it impacts in our daily lives, ordinarily or on-line. This paper uses comparative method analyzes seemingly opposed essential parts of consent due to lawfulness of personal data processing versus inclusion of same data in a chain using blockchain technology, with the hypothesis that freewill public announcement of personal data substitute explicit consent for their processing. Finally, the author concludes that the principle of lawfulness stated by GDPR is not violated if the personal data processor using blockchain technology does not obtain consent for the processing of personal data, voluntarily put into the chain by another subject in the same “chain” and the “right to be forgotten” isn’t absolute right.

scholarly journals Protection of privacy in the period of Covid-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-75
Author(s):  
Denitza Toptchiyska
Keyword(s):  
Communication Networks ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Legislative Amendments ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
The Right

During the pandemic of COVID-19 in April 2020 the Ministry of Health in Bulgaria began the administration of the Virusafe contact tracking application. With the Law on Emergency Measures and Actions, declared by a decision of the National Assembly of 13th March 2020 amendments to the Electronic Communications Act were adopted. The purpose of the legislative amendments was to provide access of the competent authorities to the localization data from the public electronic communication networks of the individuals, who have refused or do not fulfill the obligatory isolation or treatment under art. 61 of the Health Act. This publication aims to analyze the main features of mobile applications for tracking the contacts of infected persons, as well as the adopted legislative changes, comparing them with the standards of personal data protection provided in the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC on the right to privacy and electronic communications.

scholarly journals Analysis of the NHSX Contact Tracing App ‘Isle of Wight’ Data Protection Impact Assessment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Veale
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
The Right

This note examines the published data protection impact assessment (DPIA) released by NHSX in relation to their contact tracing/proximity tracing app. It highlights a range of significant issues which leave the app falling short of data protection legislation. It does this in order so that these issues can be remedied before the next DPIA is published. The main issues this note focuses on are the following:Personal data- The DPIA must not claim this data is anonymous, or that the app preserves anonymity, as under UK law, it does not.- The document (and associated public messaging) must be changed throughout to reflect the fact that it is not the case that personal data about a user is only uploaded with a user’s permission, as other people upload data revealing a user's social interactions.User rights- The lawful basis for a blanket refusal of the right to erasure is unspecified by NHSX in this DPIA.- The NHSX App unlawfully designs out the right to access when there is a legal obligation to design it in.- If the controller plans to, as with the right to erasure and the right to access, refuse all attempts at the right to object, this needs a justification in the DPIA.Monitoring and automated decision making- The DPIA must acknowledge the NHSX App systematically monitors publicly accessible spaces.- The DPIA does not set out a valid lawful basis for the solely automated, significant decision-making it correctly identifies as occurring.- The information contained in the document embedded in the DPIA describing the logic of automated decisions must be provided under GDPR, article 13.Prior consultation and e-Privacy- The Information Commissioner must be consulted prior to processing within the meaning of GDPR, art 36, not just briefed.- The DPIA should explain how the The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations are complied with, both in relation to Bluetooth usage and in relation to embedded trackers.The note does not consider alternative architectures or less intrusive means to achieve the purposes of the NHSX app, although these are critical issues that this DPIA could be argued as failing to assess. This note is unable to assess the risks of the app as provided by the DPIA as all the risks have been redacted.

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.

scholarly journals REFORMS IN THE COMMUNICATIONS MONITORING SYSTEM AS A PRECONDITION FOR EFFECTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 1509-1514
Author(s):  
Biljana Karovska-Andonovska ◽  
Zoran Jovanovski
Keyword(s):  
Monitoring System ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Other ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

The reforms in the communications monitoring system as part of the wider reform of the security services in the Republic of Macedonia, resulted with creation of a package of several laws whose adoption was supposed to provide the legislative basis for a system that would really work in accordance with the goals for which it was established. The communications monitoring system should provide a balanced protection of the right to security, on the one hand, and the right to privacy, on the other. Only on that way a priori primacy of the right to security over the right to privacy will it be disabled. Hence, the reforms in communications monitoring system are a precondition for the effective protection, primarily for the right to privacy and the secrecy of communications, but also for the right to personal data protection, the inviolability of the home as well as for the right to presumption of innocence. It is a complex and delicate matter where opening of a real debate through which the present deficiencies will be perceived in order to create an appropriate legal solutions was very important. However, the new Law on Interception of Communications as the most important in this area, retained a certain part of the provisions that were debatable in the previous legal solutions. The provisions regarding the model for interception of communications, which stipulates the establishment of a separate agency that mediates between the operators and the authorized bodies for interception of communications, were questionable as well. Also, new measures for monitoring communications in the interest of security and defense, as well as the provisions which regulate the disposition and delivery of metadata for security and defense, are also debatable. On the other side, the reform laws made an evident progress in a positive sense through the provisions for oversight and control over the interception of communications. With these changes, certain debatable elements have been overcome, especially those that have hindered it so far, and in some cases completely paralyzed the oversight and control over the monitoring of communications. In this paper we analyzed the debatable elements in the reform package of laws on interception of communications as well as some positive aspects contained in the provisions of the reform laws.

scholarly journals Personas datu aizsardzības mērķis un tiesiskā regulējuma vēsturiskā attīstība

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (13) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
Agnese Reine-Vītiņa
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Population Census ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Mūsdienās tiesības uz privāto dzīvi nepieciešamas ikvienā demokrātiskā sabiedrībā, un šo tiesību iekļaušana konstitūcijā juridiski garantē fiziskas personas rīcības brīvību un vienlaikus arī citu – valsts pamatlikumā noteikto – cilvēka tiesību īstenošanu [5]. Personas datu aizsardzības institūts tika izveidots, izpratnes par tiesību uz personas privātās dzīves neaizskaramību saturu paplašinot 20. gadsimta 70. gados, kad vairāku Eiropas valstu valdības uzsāka informācijas apstrādes projektus, piemēram, tautas skaitīšanu u. c. Informācijas tehnoloģiju attīstība ļāva arvien vairāk informācijas par personām glabāt un apstrādāt elektroniski. Viena no tiesību problēmām bija informācijas vākšana par fizisku personu un tiesību uz privātās dzīves neaizskaramību ievērošana. Lai nodrošinātu privātās dzīves aizsardzību, atsevišķas Eiropas valstis pēc savas iniciatīvas pieņēma likumus par datu aizsardzību. Pirmie likumi par personas datu aizsardzību Eiropā tika pieņemti Vācijas Federatīvajā Republikā, tad Zviedrijā (1973), Norvēģijā (1978) un citur [8, 10]. Ne visas valstis pieņēma likumus par datu aizsardzību vienlaikus, tāpēc Eiropas Padome nolēma izstrādāt konvenciju, lai unificētu datu aizsardzības noteikumus un principus. Nowadays, the right to privacy is indispensable in every democratic society and inclusion of such rights in the constitution, guarantees legally freedom of action of a natural person and, simultaneously, implementation of other human rights established in the fundamental law of the state. The institute of personal data protection was established by expanding the understanding of the content of the right to privacy in the 70’s of the 19th century, when the government of several European countries initiated information processing projects, such as population census etc. For the development of information technology, more and more information on persons was kept and processed in electronic form. One of the legal problems was gathering of information on natural persons and the right to privacy. In order to ensure the protection of privacy, separate European countries, on their own initiative, established a law on data protection. The first laws on the protection of personal data in Europe were established in the Federal Republic of Germany, then in Sweden (1973), Norway (1978) and elsewhere. Not all countries adopted laws on data protection at the same time, so the Council of Europe decided to elaborate a convention to unify data protection rules and principles.

Personal Data Protection in Digital Libraries

2011 ◽  
pp. 413-429
Author(s):  
Ioannis Iglezakis
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Digital Libraries ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Privacy Threats ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Library Users ◽  
Personally Identifiable Information ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Right

Digital libraries provide many advantages compared with traditional libraries, such as wide and round the clock availability of resources, lack of physical boundaries, etc. However, the disclosure of personally identifiable information in the course of processing activities may lead to an invasion of privacy of library users, without their being aware of it. In fact, privacy threats are increased in the digital environment, in which digital libraries operate. The right to privacy in the library is “the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one’s interest examined or scrutinized by others” (ALA, 2005). Users of digital libraries have similar privacy expectations when making use of their services. The issues concerning the privacy of digital libraries’ patrons are thus addressed in comparative perspective, in this chapter. In more particular, the legal regulations with regard to data protection in digital libraries in the EU and the US are presented. The comparative analysis of the two legal orders shows differences and similarities, but also highlights loopholes of protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document