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

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].

Fundamental Rights and the Obligation to Publicly Disclose Information on Tax Strategy

The aim of the article: The presented study concerns the problem of violations of fundamental rights caused by the law regulation contained in art. 27c of the Corporate Income Tax Act in Poland. This regulation provides obligation to publish information about introduced tax strategies. Yet, it may endanger many human rights and this article focuses on two of them – the right to remain silent, and the right of privacy. The aim of this article is to make an analysis of the standards presented by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, the standard presented by the Polish Constitutional Court is presented. Methodology: To decode these standards the comparative law method is used. Especially the case laws of these courts are presented and additionally, they are completed by the comparison of the acts that concern similar law institutions but come from different lawmakers. Results of the research: The results of the study do not provide a clear answer. However, they do allow for an approximation of the issue of possible violations of fundamental rights by the analyzed regulation. It is very likely that the analyzed regulation violates the right to remain silent and it is even close to certainty that the analyzed laws violate the right to privacy. The problem is not only the interference in these rights, but in its character as well. Under certain circumstances, interference with fundamental rights is acceptable but must be proportionate. Examined laws are only explained in terms of budgetary balance and the academic world points out that the purpose of this type of regulation is mainly of administrative convenience. This is far too little to consider this interference with fundamental rights imperative.

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

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.

Freedom of Expression in the UK and Protection of Privacy in Human Rights: Princess Diana’s Case as an Example

This paper mainly aims to argue the research questions “what is the right of privacy?, how the article 8 protected privacy in Act 1998 and to deliberate the case of princes Diana Between the freedom of expression and protect the privacy?. Hence, to discourse the impact of the media Law in dealing with freedom of expression and the right of privacy. This paper will argues the concept of the Freedom of expression which is one of the most fundamental aspect of the individuals rights that enjoy in everyday life. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity in the community. On the other hand, the paper will explore the impact on media law and some examples of rich figure, media celebrity and famous, which they complaining of the media invasion of privacy will be explained, and then how the Court treated with Princess Diana’s case in the viewpoint of privacy and freedom of excretion concepts. The paper mainly depends on the content analysis method for analysing legal documentation of the articles related to the freedom of expression, also it depends on the case-study method for its sample which is Princess Diana’s case.

From Crime Control Model to Due Process Model: A Critical Study of Wiretapping Arrangement by the Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia

This study compares three formal criminal laws on the corruption act to show the importance of due process model for wiretapping/lawful interception in Indonesia. Investigators of Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) assume that the implementation of wiretapping based on the due process model decelerate the performance and independence of corruption eradication. The problem particularly happens on the execution of caught in the act operation. This study covers the design of wiretapping on corruption case linked with the due process model as an effort to guarantee the right of privacy. Firstly, legislators accentuated an effective corruption eradication, which highlights the implementation of the crime control model. Secondly, the latest amendment to the Law on Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia alters wiretapping to become a procedural activity for stronger synergy among the law enforcement institutions. The regulation of wiretapping as a method to reveal corruption case in Indonesia does not adhere to the due process model entirely. The wiretapping still tends to deal with stages of preliminary-investigation, investigation, prosecution, and the execution of internal approval process.

Privacy and Data Protection

This chapter covers privacy and data protection. This entails a series of legal requirements for development and design, for the default settings, and for the employment of computer architectures. In addition, the chapter defines the right to privacy as a subjective right, attributed by objective law, which may be national (constitutional) law, international human rights law, or supranational law (EU fundamental rights law). The chapter first confronts the landscape of human rights law at the global, national, and EU level. It then inquires into the right of privacy, as guaranteed under the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), and finally provides an extensive analysis of the new fundamental right to data protection, as guaranteed by the CFREU and protected by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Women’s Legal and Constitutional Rights

The right to vote, equal protection under the law, and the right of privacy are the primary constitutional provisions that are pertinent to women as women. Formal recognition of these rights has failed to achieve full equality for women in the United States, however. The critical social and institutional analyses provided by political scientists can explain the failure of women’s rights to be realized. Adjudication of rights can be found in Supreme Court doctrine, but political scientists routinely look beyond the courts to consider that rights are political in their making, their operation, and their reception. Formal constitutional provisions were the product of social movements and political organization. The social hierarchies that impeded coalitions likewise inflected those victories with ongoing inequality between women, as well as inequality between men and women. Once achieved, those rights were shaped by ongoing legal mobilization, either to expand or to limit their reach. Even where the legal system legitimately sought to protect women’s rights, inadvertent institutional arrangements and practices have served to reproduce conditions of inequality. State-building and policy, then, are important in understanding the lived experience of rights. Finally, rights alone are unlikely to be honored if women lack the standing to be considered as legitimate exercisers of those rights. For that reason, scholars refer to rights in terms of citizenship, in which rights are protected and the polity recognizes the rights-holder as worthy of the claim.