scholarly journals Comparison between the U.S. and Another Country’s Law of Privacy: Taking China and Britain for Example

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shi Hu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Basic Belief ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Individual Personality ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The right of privacy is a basic personal right, which refers to the right that the interests of individual personality are not infringed, private affairs unrelated to the public interest are not allowed to be released to the public, and private territory belonging to individuals is not illegally invaded. The protection of the right to privacy stems from a basic belief: everyone has the right not to be disturbed, and has the right to decide how to appear in front of the public, unless they have taken the initiative to put themselves in the public view, or their privacy involves the public interest[1].

The Right to Be Forgotten: The Balance Between Public and Private Interests in the Practice of Constitutional Control Organs

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Daria A. Petrova ◽  
Ekaterina A. Galchun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Telecommunications Network ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
The Right

The internet information and telecommunications network, due to its accessibility and easy storage and distribution of huge amounts of data, and its ability to search and find information, plays a key role in the implementation of such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and the press. At the same time, there is an increasing risk that materials on the World Wide Web may harm the rights and legitimate interests of individuals, especially the right to privacy. In these conditions of eternal competition between the public and the private, the right to be forgotten arises as a mechanism that allows one to remove or slow the spread of unwanted information. The authors investigate the problem of implementing this relatively new opportunity in the context of finding a balance between the public interest in obtaining information and the private interest in destroying it. It is argued that this category of cases is difficult due to the lack of a unified standard of proof and criteria for evaluating arguments. Based on an analysis of the most important precedents, the most common legal positions on the issue are identified and critically assessed. An increasing priority afforded to public interest and the decreasing requirements for the deletion of information is revealed. The authors consider the emergence of the right to be forgotten as a new mechanism for settling disputes in a pre-trial manner, by allowing one to not completely destroy, but to suspend the dissemination of undesirable information, thereby protecting private interests without violating the legitimate rights of the public. The conclusion is made about the right to be forgotten as a compromise in the conflict of fundamental rights. An approximate list of arguments for applicants and respondents is provided, suitable for practical application in disputes about the right to be forgotten.

Freedom of Expression versus Privacy and the Right to Reputation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Voorhoof
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Investigative Journalism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The One ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The normative perspective of this chapter is how to guarantee respect for the fundamental values of freedom of expression and journalistic reporting on matters of public interest in cases where a (public) person claims protection of his or her right to reputation. First it explains why there is an increasing number and expanding potential of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and media freedom (Article 10 ECHR), on the one hand, and the right of privacy and the right to protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR), on the other. In addressing and analysing the European Court’s balancing approach in this domain, the characteristics and the impact of the seminal 2012 Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 1) are identified and explained. On the basis of the analysis of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence in defamation cases it evaluates whether this case law preserves the public watchdog-function of media, investigative journalism and NGOs reporting on matters of public interest, but tarnishing the reputation of public figures.

scholarly journals Governing Knowledge: Intellectual Property Management for Development and the Public Interest

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Leonardo Burlamaqui
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
Analytical Perspective ◽  
The Right

The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of intellectual property rights and regulations, the last three decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual property, patent, public, interest, public sector, private sector, socioeconomic developmen

scholarly journals THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND THE QUEST FOR PRIVACY PROTECTION IN BANGLADESH: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 567-596
Author(s):  
Mohsin Dhali ◽  
Sonny Zulhuda ◽  
Suzi Fadhilah Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
Explicit Recognition ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right

The present unbridled advancement in the field of information and communication technology has resulted in individuals being thrust at a crossroad, where refusing to sacrifice one’s privacy would mean the denial of technological benefits. Concern for privacy begins once a child is born into this world where the right to privacy could now be argued needs to be considered as one of the basic human rights similar to other inalienable rights such as the right to life and liberties. Bangladesh is one of the countries that has not given explicit recognition to the right of privacy. This is evident from the absence of explicit indications of the right to privacy in the Constitution of Bangladesh and judicial interventions make the constitutional protection of privacy questionable. The purpose of the present study is to find out whether the right to privacy is in fact recognized and protected by the Constitution of Bangladesh by examining specific provisions in the Constitution of Bangladesh to locate provisions that could be relied on to show that a sliver of recognition could be given to the right of privacy in Bangladesh. This position is then compared to other jurisdictions, especially the common law jurisdictions. The study finds that although Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees limited protection that encompasses the right to privacy of home and correspondence but if read together with the right to life and liberty in Article 32, it could be argued that these are viable provisions in recognizing the right to privacy under the Constitution of Bangladesh.

scholarly journals TV Ombudsman: an argument against Pandora’s Box

Comunicar ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (25) ◽  
Author(s):  
María-Magdalena da-Costa-Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Space ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Press ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

To transform an individual pain into a collective feeling of suffering is a capacity of all mass media. However, television has, in this point, a tremendous power. The capacity to join millions of TV viewers in front of itself is its most admirable merit, but it’s also its most dreadful danger. Principally when the point are the human rights, as the right of privacy or the right of not suffer in the public space, the demand of quality appears not only as an obligation of the Government but also as a duty of citizenship of all TV viewers. Although it is not properly a novelty in some European countries, the existence of a TV Ombudsman2 will be a reality in Portugal only this year. The Government has approved a legal diploma to create this figure, which will evaluate the programming and information of the public channel RTP. As the ombudsmen of press that we already know, the TV Ombudsman will be the person who receives the critics and observations of TV viewers, evaluates them and writes about them an impression to the administration of the channel. Being a self-regulatory proceeding, the TV Ombudsman is fundamentally a mechanism that implicates citizens. It is not only an entity of vigilance on ethics of Television. It is essentially a platform of dialogue between journalists, programmers and TV viewers. As in the press, the Ombudsman is a mediator. Although it is probably not an absolute guarantee of quality, TV Ombudsman is surely an argument of citizens against the bad things diffused by the box that we believe is the one by which the most important of our lives goes trough. Transformar uma dor individual num sentimento colectivo de sofrimento é uma capacidade de todos os meios de massa. Todavia, a televisão tem a este título um poder tremendamente grande. A capacidade de reunir milhões de telespectadores à sua frente é o seu mais admirável mérito, mas também o seu mais temível perigo. Sobretudo quando estão em causa direitos humanos, como o direito à privacidade ou a não sofrer no espaço público, a procura de qualidade surge não somente como uma obrigação do governo como também como um dever de cidadania de todos os espectadores. Não sendo propriamente novidade em alguns países europeus, a existência do Provedor do Telespectador1 só será uma realidade em Portugal este ano. O governo aprovou um diploma para a criação desta figura que deverá avaliar a programação e a informação do canal público RTP. Como os provedores dos leitores que conhecemos, também o Provedor do Telespectador será a pessoa que receberá as críticas e as observações dos telespectadores, as avaliará e emitirá sobre elas um parecer para a administração do canal. Sendo um procedimento de auto-regulação, o Provedor do Telespectador é fundamentalmente uma entidade de vigilância da ética da televisão. Essencialmente é uma plataforma de diálogo entre jornalistas, programadores e telespectadores. Tal como na imprensa, o Provedor é um mediador. Ainda que não seja provavelmente uma garantia absoluta de qualidade, o Provedor do Telespectador é seguramente um argumento dos cidadãos contra os males difundidos pela caixa que se crê ser aquela por onde passa o mais importante das nossas vidas.

The Right to Privacy Is Political: Power, the Boundary Between Public and Private, and Sexual Harassment

1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 45-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Marie Roth
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Social Power ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Paid Labor ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Right

This paper concerns the relationship between power and the ability to defend the night of privacy. The discourse of public and private spheres has shifted historically, engendering arbitrary and changing legal and cultural definitions of the boundary between public and private. Historic specifications of this boundary have become untenable as increasing numbers of women entered the paid labor force. Recent formulations define the boundary of privacy as an area within each individual's life. However, greater social power increases the ability to protect personal privacy because it offers the ability to define and protect the “private” from scrutiny. After outlining the history of the shifting public/private boundary, this argument is applied to sexual harassment. Explicitly sexual types of harassment are related to the public/private boundary in two ways. First, they challenge the boundary itself, representing the occurrence of “private” conduct in the “public” sphere of work and education. Second, sexual harassment reveals the importance of social power in defining and defending one's privacy. Sexual harassment represents the extreme on a continuum of communication patterns between status unequals, and an invasion of the sexual privacy of the target.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document