scholarly journals Posibilidades y límites en el control de los correos electrónicos de los empleados públicos a la luz de la normativa de protección de datos

2019 ◽  
pp. 110-127
Author(s):  
Susana RODRÍGUEZ ESCANCIANO
Keyword(s):  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Digital Tools ◽  
Self Organization ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Devices ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right

Laburpena: Datuak Babesteko eta Eskubide Digitalak Bermatzeko abenduaren 5eko 3/2018 Lege berriak aitortzen duenez, enplegatu publikoek intimitaterako eskubidea dute Administrazioak lan-tresna gisa beren eskura jarritako gailu digitalak erabiltzean, eta, xede horretarako, bis atal bat sartu da Enplegatu Publikoen Oinarrizko Estatutuaren 14.j) artikulura. Hala ere, eskubidea ez dago termino absolutuetan konfiguratuta, administrazio-arduradunek sartzeko duten ahalaren ondoriozko mugaketak izan baititzake. Bada, ahal horrek bi helburu dauzka: estatutuaren betebeharrak betetzen direla kontrolatzea eta tresna digital horien osotasuna bermatzea. Sakontasun handiagoko lege-edukirik ez egoteak ez du ahaztarazi behar, ordea, oinarrizko eskubideen eta auto-antolaketarako ahalen arteko oreka-puntua bilatu behar dela. Xede horretarako, organo judizialek emandako doktrinari heldu behar zaio, zeina gainbegiratze inbaditzaileenen ingurukoa den; hau da, posta korporatiboen gaineko gainbegiraketei buruzkoa da. Izan ere, eremu horretan ez dago pribatutasunerako eskubidea bakarrik sartuta, komunikazioen sekreturako eskubidea ere jorratzen baita. Resumen: La nueva Ley 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y Garantía de los Derechos Digitales, reconoce el derecho a la intimidad de los empleados públicos en el uso de los dispositivos digitales puestos a su disposición por la Administración como instrumentos de trabajo, introduciendo a tal fin un apartado bis en la letra j) del art. 14 del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público. Ahora bien, tal derecho no está configurado en términos absolutos sino que puede sufrir algunas restricciones derivadas de la potestad de acceso por los responsables administrativos desarrollada al amparo de una doble finalidad: bien controlar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones estatutarias, bien garantizar la integridad de dichas herramientas digitales. La escasez de contenidos legales de mayor calado no debe de hacer olvidar la necesidad de buscar un punto de equilibrio atendiendo a la doctrina sentada por los órganos judiciales, vertida principalmente en las supervisiones más invasivas, esto es, las referidas a los correos corporativos, no en vano en este ámbito ya no está implicado solo el derecho a la privacidad sino también el derecho al secreto de las comunicaciones. Abstract: The new Law 3/2018, december 5th, on the Protection of Personal Data and the Guarantee of Digital Rights, recognizes the right to privacy of public employees in the use of digital devices placed at their disposal by the Administration as instruments of work, introducing for this purpose a paragraph bis in letter j) of art. 14 of the Basic Statute of the Public Employee. However, this right is not set in absolute terms but may suffer some restrictions derived from the power of access by administrative managers developed under a double purpose: either to control compliance with statutory obligations, or to guarantee the integrity of digital tools. The few legal content of greater importance should not make us forget the need to find a balance point between fundamental rights and the powers of self-organization. To this purpose, it is necessary to attend to the doctrine set by the judicial sentences, mainly in the most invasive supervisions, that is, those referring to corporate mail, because in this area, not only the right to privacy is involved, but also the right to secrecy of communications.

scholarly journals The Right to Privacy—A Fundamental Right in Search of Its Identity: Uncovering the CJEU’s Flawed Concept of the Right to Privacy

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (05) ◽  
pp. 722-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin M. Pfisterer
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn recent years, the CJEU has impressively brought to bear the protection of the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data as contained in the CFREU. The Court’s decisions in the Digital Rights, Schrems, Tele2, and PNR cases have reshaped the political and legal landscape in Europe and beyond. By restricting the powers of the governments of EU Member States and annulling legislative acts enacted by the EU legislator, the decisions had, and continue to have, effects well beyond the respective individual cases. Despite their strong impact on privacy and data protection across Europe, however, these landmark decisions reveal a number of flaws and inconsistencies in the conceptualization of the rights to privacy and protection of personal data as endorsed and interpreted by the CJEU. This Article identifies and discusses some of the shortcomings revealed in the recent CJEU privacy and data protection landmark decisions and proposes to the CJEU a strategy aimed at resolving these shortcomings going forward.

scholarly journals DECONSTRUCTING DATA PROTECTION: THE ‘ADDED-VALUE’ OF A RIGHT TO DATA PROTECTION IN THE EU LEGAL ORDER

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orla Lynskey
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Added Value ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Individual Personality ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractArticle 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out a right to data protection which sits alongside, and in addition to, the established right to privacy in the Charter. The Charter's inclusion of an independent right to data protection differentiates it from other international human rights documents which treat data protection as a subset of the right to privacy. Its introduction and its relationship with the established right to privacy merit an explanation. This paper explores the relationship between the rights to data protection and privacy. It demonstrates that, to date, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently conflated the two rights. However, based on a comparison between the scope of the two rights as well as the protection they offer to individuals whose personal data are processed, it claims that the two rights are distinct. It argues that the right to data protection provides individuals with more rights over more types of data than the right to privacy. It suggests that the enhanced control over personal data provided by the right to data protection serves two purposes: first, it proactively promotes individual personality rights which are threatened by personal data processing and, second, it reduces the power and information asymmetries between individuals and those who process their data. For these reasons, this paper suggests that there ought to be explicit judicial recognition of the distinction between the two rights.

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.

The Impact of New Technologıes on Human Rıghts ın the Context of the Rıght to be Forgotten and the Rıght to Prıvacy

2021 ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
GULNAZ AYDIN RZAYEVA ◽  
AYTAKIN NAZIM IBRAHIMOVA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The development of new technologies also has an impact on human rights. In the previous “epochs” of global information society, it was stated that that traditional rights can be exercised online. For instance, in 2012 (and again in 2014 and 2016), the UN Human Rights Council emphasized that ‘the same rights granted to people, so to speak, in an “offline” manner, must be protected online as well’. This, in its turn, implicitly brought to the reality that the new technetronic society did not create new rights. Though, we should take into consideration that in the digital world national legislative norms that guarantee the confidentiality of personal data often do not catch up with the technological development and, thus, can’t ensure confidentiality online. Therefore, the impact of digitalization on human rights within the frames of international and national laws should be broadly analysed and studied. The article’s objective is to analyze the impact of new technologies on human rights in the context of the right to be forgotten and right to privacy. Because the development of new technologies is more closely linked to the security of personal data. With the formation of the right to be forgotten, it is the issue of ensuring the confidentiality of certain contents of personal data as a result of the influence of the time factor. The authors conclude that, the right to be forgotten was previously defended more in the context of the right to privacy. However, they cannot be considered equal rights. The right to be forgotten stems from a person’s desire to develop and continue his or her life independently without being the object of criticism for any negative actions he or she has committed in the past. If the right to privacy contains generally confidential information, the right to be forgotten is understood as the deletion of known information at a certain time and the denial of access to third parties. Thus, the right to be forgotten is not included in the right to privacy, and can be considered an independent right. The point is that the norms of the international and national documents, which establish fundamental human rights and freedoms, do not regulate issues related to the right to be forgotten. The right to be forgotten should be limited to the deletion of information from the media and Internet information resources. This is not about the complete destruction of information available in state information systems. Another conclusion of authors is that the media and Internet information resources sometimes spread false information. In this case, there will be no content of the right to be forgotten. Because the main thing is that the information that constitutes the content of the right to be forgotten must be legal, but after some time it has lost its significance. The scope of information included in the content of the right to be forgotten should not only be related to the conviction, but also to other special personal data (for example, the fact of divorce).

The Right to Anonymity in Political Activities

2013 ◽  
pp. 202-220
Author(s):  
Knut Fournier
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Political Activities ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Value

The complexity of the right to privacy is particularly striking when the issues at stake are, ultimately, other political rights and freedoms such as the right to free speech and the right of association. The surveillance of individuals and groups by the state has strong political consequences: the surveillance of political activities re-defines what the private sphere is, and displaces its limits, in a context in which more information is becoming available to the public. Multiple recent developments, exemplified by the role of the right to privacy in movies, exacerbated the tensions between Europe and the United States over the notion of privacy. The future EU data protection laws will create a right to be forgotten, whose political value is still unknown.

The Right to Privacy and the Protection of Personal Data in a Digital Era and the Age of Information

2012 ◽  
pp. 34-45
Author(s):  
William Bülow ◽  
Misse Wester
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

As information technology is becoming an integral part of modern society, there is a growing concern that too much data containing personal information is stored by different actors in society and that this could potentially be harmful for the individual. The aim of this contribution is to show how the extended use of ICT can affect the individual’s right to privacy and how the public perceives risks to privacy. Three points are raised in this chapter: first, if privacy is important from a philosophical perspective, how is this demonstrated by empirical evidence? Do individuals trust the different actors that control their personal information, and is there a consensus that privacy can and should be compromised in order to reach another value? Second, if compromises in privacy are warranted by increased safety, is this increased security supported by empirical evidence? Third, the authors will argue that privacy can indeed be a means to increase the safety of citizens and that the moral burden of ensuring and protecting privacy is a matter for policy makers, not individuals. In conclusion, the authors suggest that more nuanced discussion on the concepts of privacy and safety should be acknowledged and the importance of privacy must be seen as an important objective in the development and structure of ICT uses.

scholarly journals The Right to Privacy and Private Detective Activities in Lithuania

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Mindaugas Bilius
Keyword(s):  
Personal Data ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Private Detective ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

ABSTRACT Private detectives have been providing their services in Lithuania for about a decade; however, only now has the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania started to discuss whether it is expedient and necessary to regulate the activities of private detectives by means of a separate law. One of the goals of a separate legal regulation of private detective activities is the protection of human rights, particularly the right to privacy. This article examines the provisions of national and international legislative acts related to the private life of a person, and assesses the opportunities of a private detective to provide private detective services without prejudice to the provisions of applicable legislative acts. The article concludes that a private detective is not an authorized (public) authority and there is no possibility to assess in each case whether the interests of a person using the services of private detectives are more important than those of other persons, which would allow for violating their rights to private life. The limits of an individual’s right to privacy can only be narrowed by a particular person, giving consent to making public the details of his/her private life. It is the only opportunity for a private detective to gather information related to the private life of a citizen. Currently applicable legislative acts in Lithuania do not provide for opportunities for private subjects to collect personal data without that person’s consent. This right is granted only to public authorities and with the court’s permission

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document