DOCSLIB.ORG

The New Eu Data Protection Regime: Setting Global Standards for the Right to Personal Data Protection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2 PROTECTION REGIME PROTECTION THE NEW EU DATA THE NEW EU DATA PROTECTION REGIME: SETTING GLOBAL STANDARDS FOR THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION THE XXIX FIDE CONGRESS IN THE HAGUE VOL. 2 2020 CONGRESS PUBLICATIONS Jorrit J. Rijpma (Ed.) 2 The proceedings of the XXIX FIDE Congress Rijpma J. Jorrit XXIX FIDE CONGRESS REGIME PROTECTION in The Hague in 2020 are published in four volumes. This book (Vol. 2) contains the reports of the General Rapporteur (Orla Lynskey), the Institutional Rapporteurs (Herke Kranenborg and Anna Buchta) and the National Rapporteurs (Ed.) on Topic 2: The New EU Data Protection Regime: Setting Global Standards for the Right to Personal Data Protection. ISBN 978-94-6236-129-4 9 789462 361294 The New EU Data Protection Regime The New EU Data Protection Regime Setting Global Standards for the Right to Personal Data Protection Le nouveau cadre reglementaire de l’UE en matiere de protection des donnees L’enonciation de normes mondiales pour le droit a la protection des donnees personnelles Das neue EU Datenschutzregime Setzen globaler Standards für das individuelle Recht auf Datenschutz The XXIX Congress in The Hague, 2020 Congress Publications Vol. 2 Editor: Jorrit J. Rijpma General Rapporteur: Orla Lynskey Institutional Rapporteurs: Anna Buchta & Herke Kranenborg Published, sold and distributed by Eleven International Publishing P.O. Box 85576 2508 CG The Hague The Netherlands Tel.: +31 70 33 070 33 Fax: +31 70 33 070 30 e-mail: [email protected] www.elevenpub.com Sold and distributed in USA and Canada Independent Publishers Group 814 N. Franklin Street Chicago, IL 60610 USA Order Placement: (800) 888-4741 Fax: (312) 337-5985 [email protected] www.ipgbook.com Eleven International Publishing is an imprint of Boom uitgevers Den Haag. ISBN 978-94-6236-129-4 © 2020 The Authors | Eleven International Publishing This publication is protected by international copyright law. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in the Netherlands Table of Contents Introduction from the FIDE 2020 Board ix Introduction from the Editor xiii Introduction du Comité Directeur du Congrès de la FIDE 2020 xv Introduction de l’Éditeur xix Begrüßung durch das Organisationskomitee von FIDE 2020 xxi Vorwort des Bearbeiter xxv Questionnaire Topic 2: The New EU Data Protection Regime 1 Questionnaire Thème 2: Le Nouveau Régime de Protection des Données de l’UE 7 Fragebogen Thema 2: Das Neue EU-Datenschutzregime 15 General Report Topic 2: The New EU Data Protection Regime 23 Orla Lynskey Institutional Report Topic 2: The New EU Data Protection Regime 79 Anna Buchta and Herke Kranenborg National Reports Austria 109 Hans Kristoferitsch Belgium 135 Anneleen Van de Meulebroucke, Dries Van Briel and Justine De Meersman Bulgaria 155 Ana Velkova v Table of Contents Croatia 179 Antonija Ivančan Cyprus 197 Stéphanie Laulhé Shaelou and Katerina Kalaitzaki Czech Republic 217 Ondřej Serdula and Vojtěch Bartoš Denmark 235 Søren Sandfeld Jakobsen Estonia 247 Merike Kaev Finland 259 Anu Talus and Tobias Bräutigam France 273 Céline Castets-Renard, Mathieu Combet and Olivia Tambou Germany 295 Dieter Kugelmann Greece 323 Anna Pouliou, Virginia Tzortzi and Despina Vezakidou Hungary 343 Tamás Bendik, Dániel Eszteri, Attila Kiss, Melinda Kovács, Ágnes Majsa and Katalin Siklósi-Somogyi Ireland 365 Kate Colleary and Emily Gibson Italy 385 Francesco Rossi Dal Pozzo Luxembourg 403 Tine A. Larsen, Clémentine Boulanger and Annelies Vandendriessche Malta 425 Mireille M. Caruana vi Table of Contents The Netherlands 445 Dominique Hagenauw and Hielke Hijmans Norway 467 Milos Novovic and Martin Hennig Poland 477 Agnieszka Grzelak and Mirosław Wróblewski Portugal 497 Filipa Calvão and Clara Guerra Romania 513 Augustin Fuerea and Roxana-Mariana Popescu Slovakia 525 Lilla Garayova Slovenia 543 Nina Pekolj and Marjan Antončič Spain 561 Antonio Segura Serrano and Julián Valero Torrijos Sweden 581 Pernilla Norman Switzerland 597 Jacques Beglinger The United Kingdom 619 Leonard W.N. Hawkes List of FIDE 2020 Partners vii Introduction from the FIDE 2020 Board It was in a small pub in Tallinn in 2012, late at night, that a group of Dutch jurists visiting the bi-annual Congress of the International Federation for European Law (FIDE) in Estonia, brought up the bold idea of bringing FIDE to The Netherlands. Eight years later, the Netherlands Association of European Law (NVER), has the honour of welcoming the members of FIDE in The Hague at the XXIX FIDE Congress. Or rather: welcoming them back to The Hague. Twice before did the FIDE convene in the Dutch seat of government: in 1963 and in 1984. Much like the European Union itself, The Hague has changed since 1984. It has grown, its skyline has been transformed and its position as an international city of peace and justice consolidated, also with the presence of Europol and Eurojust. The impact of FIDE as an organisation, and of its members, on the development of European law has been well-documented.1 From the outset FIDE formed a unique transnational network bringing together key actors who stood at the basis of the ‘new legal order’,2 who shaped European law as a discipline in its own right, and who legitimised the Court’s “‘constitutional’ understanding of European Law” at its early conferences in The Hague (1963) and Paris (1965).3 Whereas in the early 1960s European law had yet to achieve its full potential, participants of the 1984 Congress may have considered primacy and direct effect as largely settled, as the European Communities were to embark on Jacques Delors’ internal market project. At the same time, they would not have imagined the exponential growth in services and the exciting, yet also disruptive, effects of the internet and new technology. In 2020, after years of crises that have shaken the European Union to its very foundations, it seems once again in need of FIDE to act as “the wheeling flank of the army of European jurists”,4 to understand, explain and defend a Union that is based on the rule of law and, notably, on 1 J. Laffranque, ‘FIDE – Uniting Great Minds of European Law: 50 Years of the International Federation for European Law’, Juridica International XVIII, 2011, pp. 173-181. See for example also S. Lee Mudge & A. Vauchez, ‘Building Europe on a Weak Field: Law, Economics, and Scholarly Avatars in Transnational Politics’ AJS Vol. 118, No. 2, 2012, pp. 449-492. The Spanish FIDE 2010 organisation did a fantastic job in making much of the FIDE archive accessible to its members: www.fide-europe.org/members-login/, visited 1 February 2020. 2 Judgment of 5 February 1963, Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport-en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1. 3 M. Rasmussen, Establishing a Constitutional Practice of European Law: The History of the Legal Service of The European Executive, 1952-65, Contemporary European History Vol. 21, No. 3, 2012, p. 395. 4 A. de Vreese, Droit communautaire et droit national, 14 Cahiers de Bruges, Vol. 14, No. 399, 1965, quoted in A. Vauchez, Brokering Europe: Euro-Lawyers and the Making of a Transnational Polity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 137. ix Introduction from the FIDE 2020 Board common values the members of FIDE hold dear. In our modern society, European cooperation is not just an option; it is a necessity. In keeping with good practice and tradition, the XXIX FIDE Congress addresses three main topics for which distinguished General Rapporteurs have been invited to draft a questionnaire on the current relevant legal issues on a European and national level. Rapporteurs from the FIDE Members Associations and prominent experts from the EU institutions have responded with country and institutional reports. Based on this input, the General Rapporteurs compiled a General Report on each topic. You will find all the reports in the FIDE XXIX Congress Publications While in the early days the Commission’s Legal Service would ask FIDE to report on certain questions,5 the current selection of the three main topics is the result of lively discussions. The organisers of the FIDE XXIX Congress took advantage of valuable contributions from the FIDE Steering Committee, by bringing together the Netherlands academic community and benefiting greatly from the input from practitioners, as well as FIDE members, colleagues and friends in the European Institutions and Member States. The three topics under discussion at the FIDE 2020 Congress revisit some of the classic tenets of EU law, whilst bringing to the table new questions that are triggered by the needs of modern society. Our aim has been to appeal to both specialists and general EU lawyers. The topics that were selected for the FIDE 2020 Congress are the following: 1. National Courts and the Enforcement of EU Law: The Pivotal Role of National Courts in the EU Legal Order 2. The New EU Data Protection Regime: Setting Global Standards for the Right to Personal Data Protection 3. EU Competition Law and the Digital Economy: Protecting Free and Fair Competition in an Age of Technological (R)evolution The XXIX FIDE Congress Publications are the result of the work of a great variety of EU jurists who, in true European spirit, joined efforts to provide the General Rapporteurs with answers to their questionnaires in various national reports. The General Rapporteurs have compared, evaluated and brought together the insights from the national reports in their General Reports. Together with the Institutional Reports written by experts from the Institutions, and a special report on the EFTA Court, the Congress Publications thus present the state of the art on the three topics of the XXIX FIDE Congress.
Recommended publications
  • Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

    EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2010 COM(2010)385 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Overview of information management in the area of freedom, security and justice EN EN COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Overview of information management in the area of freedom, security and justice 1. INTRODUCTION The European Union has come a long way since the leaders of five European countries agreed in Schengen in 1985 to abolish controls at their common borders. Their agreement gave rise in 1990 to the Schengen Convention, which contained the seeds of many of today’s information management policies. The abolition of internal border checks has spurred the development of a whole range of measures at external frontiers, mainly concerning the issuing of visas, the coordination of asylum and immigration policies and the strengthening of police, judicial and customs cooperation in the fight against cross-border crime. Neither the Schengen area nor the EU internal market could function today without cross-border data exchange. The terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001, as well as the bombings in Madrid and London in 2004 and 2005, triggered another dynamic in the development of Europe’s information management policies. In 2006, the Council and the European Parliament adopted the Data Retention Directive to enable national authorities to combat serious crime by retaining telecommunication traffic and location data.1 The Council then took up the Swedish initiative to simplify the cross-border exchange of information in criminal investigations and intelligence operations.
  • Download This PDF File

    Download This PDF File

    Politics and Governance Open Access Journal | ISSN: 2183-2463 Volume 7, Issue 3 (2019) OutOut ofof thethe Shadows,Shadows, IntoInto thethe Limelight:Limelight: ParliamentsParliaments andand PoliticisationPoliticisation Editors Christine Neuhold and Guri Rosén Politics and Governance, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 3 Out of the Shadows, Into the Limelight: Parliaments and Politicisation Published by Cogitatio Press Rua Fialho de Almeida 14, 2º Esq., 1070-129 Lisbon Portugal Academic Editors Christine Neuhold (Maastricht University, The Netherlands) Guri Rosén (University of Oslo, Norway) Available online at: www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance This issue is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Articles may be reproduced provided that credit is given to the original andPolitics and Governance is acknowledged as the original venue of publication. Table of Contents Introduction to “Out of the Shadows, Into the Limelight: Parliaments and Politicisation” Christine Neuhold and Guri Rosén 220–226 Conceptualizing the Parliamentarization and Politicization of European Policies Niels Gheyle 227–236 The European Parliament and the Layered Politicization of the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy Hubert Zimmermann 237–247 Eurosceptics into the Limelight? Eurosceptic Parliamentary Actors and Media Bias in EU Affairs Katrin Auel 248–265 Proving Their Worth? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Members of the European Parliament Guri Rosén 266–278 Brexit under Scrutiny in
  • EU Member State Constitutional Identity: a Comparison of Germany and the Netherlands As Polar Opposites

    EU Member State Constitutional Identity: a Comparison of Germany and the Netherlands As Polar Opposites

    EU Member State Constitutional Identity: A Comparison of Germany and the Netherlands as Polar Opposites Gerhard van der Schyff* Abstract 167 I. Setting the Scene 168 II. Constitutional Identity Clarified 168 III. German Constitutional Identity Explored 170 1. Affirming the “Total” Constitution 170 2. Enter State-Based Democracy 172 3. Emphasizing National Sovereignty 173 IV. Dutch Constitutional Identity Explored 176 1. A “Modest” Constitution 176 2. Emphasis on Democracy 178 3. An “Open” Constitution 181 V. Germany and the Netherlands Evaluated 182 VI. On “Total” and “Modest” Constitutions 190 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to compare, in the light of European integra- tion, the concept of constitutional identity as it applies in Germany and the Netherlands as two EU Member States. Comparing Germany and the Netherlands not only allows for these polar opposites to be defined, but also evaluated. The benefits and drawbacks of expressing national constitu- tional identity will be considered, as well as ideas developed on how the concept is to be approached in the context of European integration. * Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Jurisprudence and Legal History at the Law School of Tilburg University in the Netherlands. This contribution was written as part of the author’s research stay as a Humboldt Fellow in 2015 at the Chair for Public and Euro- pean Law of Professor Christian Calliess at the Law Faculty of the Free University of Berlin in Germany. All views expressed are those of the author. ZaöRV 76 (2016), 167-191 http://www.zaoerv.de © 2016, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 168 van der Schyff I.
  • Warrantless Workplace Searches of Government

    Warrantless Workplace Searches of Government

    WARRANTLESS WORKPLACE within which the principles outlined in SEARCHES OF GOVERNMENT O’Connor for “workplace” searches by EMPLOYEES government supervisors can be understood and applied. In sum, when a government supervisor is considering the search of a Bryan R. Lemons government employee’s workspace, a two- Branch Chief part analysis can be utilized to simplify the process. First, determine whether the There are a variety of reasons why employee has a reasonable expectation of a government supervisor might wish to privacy in the area to be searched. If a search a government employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy does workplace. For example, a supervisor exist, then consider how that expectation might wish to conduct a search to locate a can be defeated.2 Before turning to those needed file or document; the supervisor issues, however, it is necessary to first might wish to search an employee’s define exactly what is meant by the term workplace to discover whether the “workplace.” employee is misusing government property, such as a government-owned DEFINING THE “WORKPLACE” computer; or, a supervisor might seek to search an employee’s workplace because “Workplace,” as used in this he has information that the employee is article, “includes those areas and items committing a crime, such as using the that are related to work and are generally Internet to download child pornography. within the employer’s control.”3 This would include such areas as offices, desks, In situations where a public filing cabinets, and computers. However, employer
  • Legal-Process Guidelines for Law Enforcement

    Legal-Process Guidelines for Law Enforcement

    Legal Process Guidelines Government & Law Enforcement within the United States These guidelines are provided for use by government and law enforcement agencies within the United States when seeking information from Apple Inc. (“Apple”) about customers of Apple’s devices, products and services. Apple will update these Guidelines as necessary. All other requests for information regarding Apple customers, including customer questions about information disclosure, should be directed to https://www.apple.com/privacy/contact/. These Guidelines do not apply to requests made by government and law enforcement agencies outside the United States to Apple’s relevant local entities. For government and law enforcement information requests, Apple complies with the laws pertaining to global entities that control our data and we provide details as legally required. For all requests from government and law enforcement agencies within the United States for content, with the exception of emergency circumstances (defined in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 1986, as amended), Apple will only provide content in response to a search issued upon a showing of probable cause, or customer consent. All requests from government and law enforcement agencies outside of the United States for content, with the exception of emergency circumstances (defined below in Emergency Requests), must comply with applicable laws, including the United States Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). A request under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty or the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (“CLOUD Act”) is in compliance with ECPA. Apple will provide customer content, as it exists in the customer’s account, only in response to such legally valid process.
  • What to Do When You Are Served with a Search Warrant by Manny A

    What to Do When You Are Served with a Search Warrant by Manny A

    AN A.S. PRATT PUBLICATION APRIL 2016 PRATT’S PRATT’S VOL. 2 • NO. 3 PRIVACY & CYBERSECURITY LAW CYBERSECURITY & PRIVACY PRATT’S PRIVACY & CYBERSECURITY REPORT LAW REPORT EDITOR’S NOTE: SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE! THE FTC, UNFAIR PRACTICES, AND Steven A. Meyerowitz CYBERSECURITY: TWO STEPS FORWARD, AND TWO STEPS BACK WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU ARE SERVED WITH A David Bender SEARCH WARRANT APRIL Manny A. Abascal and Robert E. Sims DRONES AT HOME: DHS PUBLISHES BEST PRACTICES FOR PROTECTING PRIVACY, CIVIL PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS CYBERSECURITY RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN DOMESTIC 2016 ACT OF 2015 TO ENCOURAGE CYBERSECURITY UAS PROGRAMS INFORMATION SHARING Charles A. Blanchard, David J. Weiner, Kenneth L. Wainstein, Keith M. Gerver, Tom McSorley, and Elizabeth T.M. Fitzpatrick and Peter T. Carey VOL. VOL. A SKIMPY RISK ANALYSIS IS RISKY BUSINESS 2 FOR HIPAA COVERED ENTITIES AND • BUSINESS ASSOCIATES NO. Kimberly C. Metzger 3 What to Do When You Are Served With a Search Warrant By Manny A. Abascal and Robert E. Sims* Most business executives and officers lack the training and preparation to deal effec- tively with a search warrant. In order to protect privacy and other rights, this article sets forth the basic principles that should govern preparation for, and response to, a search warrant. State and federal law enforcement agencies continue to increase their investigation and prosecution of white collar crime, particularly relating to the securities and health- care industries. The search warrant has become a regular method authorities use to obtain evidence. Law enforcement officers executing a warrant typically arrive at corporate offices with no prior notice, armed with a search warrant entitling them to seize original business records, including computer records.
  • June 10, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden the White House 1600

    June 10, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden the White House 1600

    June 10, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, government accountability, and consumer rights organizations, urge your Administration to ensure that any new transatlantic data transfer deal is coupled with the enactment of U.S. laws that reform government surveillance practices and provide comprehensive privacy protections. The United States’ failure to ensure meaningful privacy protections for personal data is the reason that a growing number of countries are concerned about trans-border data flows. Until the United States addresses this problem, concerns about data transfers to the United States will remain, and data flow agreements are likely to be invalidated. Recent history demonstrates that any transatlantic data transfer agreement will be subject to litigation to determine whether it provides adequate protection for personal data. In 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement. And in July 2020, the successor agreement, Privacy Shield, was also invalidated by the same court. Without reform of U.S. surveillance and privacy laws, any new transatlantic data transfer deal will likely face a similar fate. The only way to fully address these issues and enter into a lasting transatlantic agreement is to harmonize data protection standards between the European Union and the United States. There have been calls for the United States to strengthen and modernize its privacy laws since long before the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation came into effect in 2018. The modern concept of the right to privacy was invented in the United States – but now we lag behind many other nations on privacy protections.
  • Survey on Privacy Preserving in Social Networks

    Survey on Privacy Preserving in Social Networks

    International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391 Survey on Privacy Preserving in Social Networks S. Mayil1, Dr. M. Vanitha2 1Research scholar, PG & Research Department of Computer Science, JJ College of Arts and Science (Autonomous), Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu, India 2Assistant Professor, Ph.D. and Research Department of Computer Application, Alagappa University, Karaikudi , Tamilnadu. Abstract: The development of online social networks and the release of data network resulting in the risk of leakage of personal confidential information. This requires privacy protection before the data network is published by the service provider. Data privacy online social networks are important in recent years. Therefore, this research is still in its infancy. This article describes the generalization techniques of anonymous social networking data with sufficient privacy for harsh environments while preserving the validity of the data. The loss metric information, iloss, is used to check the information due to the loss of the generalized amount. While these networks make frequent data sharing and intercommunication between users can instantly and privacy problems that may arise are very explicable with their obvious immediate consequences. Although the concept of privacy can take different forms, the ultimate challenge is how to prevent the invasion of privacy when personal information is available. Basic social networks, co-statements, and their associated primary motivations. The following describes how to protect privacy, relying on technical analysis and link social networks to disclose sensitive user information. Keywords: Data Privacy, Data Publishing, Privacy Preserving, Social Network, Service Provider. 1. Introduction data may affect the privacy of individuals.
  • CJEU Ruling on Facebook Action on January 25, 2018: Class Action, Model Case Or No Jurisdiction?

    CJEU Ruling on Facebook Action on January 25, 2018: Class Action, Model Case Or No Jurisdiction?

    CJEU ruling on Facebook action on January 25, 2018: Class action, model case or no jurisdiction? In August 2014, lawyer and data protection expert Max Schrems filed a lawsuit against Facebook with his competent court in Vienna, as previous complaints in Ireland have not been decided by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner since 2011. Now the CJEU decides on the admissibility of the lawsuit against Facebook. Previously, in 2015 Schrems brought down the EU-US “Safe Harbor” system through a case against Facebook at the CJEU. Dispute solely on jurisdiction and on two questions Facebook has submitted various grounds with the court in Vienna, why the procedure should not be heard at all. The majority of these attempts to prevent the procedure have already been rejected by the Austria courts over the past three years. What remained, were two questions: (1) whether Mr Schrems is a "consumer" or has lost this status through his pro bono work as a privacy advocate; and (2) whether he can bring claims of other users jointly in a "class action". The class action is financed by ROLAND Prozessfinanz AG. Facebook wants each of the 25,000 other users to have to sue in a separate procedure - which would make the legal costs skyrocket and a case against Facebook financially impossible for most users. In Facebook’s view, the same legal and factual issues should therefore be trailed 25,000 times in front of thousands of European courts and judges (“divide and conquer”). These two questions were submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court.
  • Facebook: Where Privacy Concerns and Social Needs Collide

    Facebook: Where Privacy Concerns and Social Needs Collide

    Edith Cowan University Research Online Theses: Doctorates and Masters Theses 2020 Facebook: Where privacy concerns and social needs collide Sonya Scherini Edith Cowan University Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the Social Media Commons Recommended Citation Scherini, S. (2020). Facebook: Where privacy concerns and social needs collide. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ theses/2331 This Thesis is posted at Research Online. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/2331 Edith Cowan University Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorize you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. Where the reproduction of such material is done without attribution of authorship, with false attribution of authorship or the authorship is treated in a derogatory manner, this may be a breach of the author’s moral rights contained in Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Courts have the power to impose a wide range of civil and criminal sanctions for infringement of copyright, infringement of moral rights and other offences under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form.
  • A Call from the Panopticon to the Judicial Chamber “Expect Privacy!”

    A Call from the Panopticon to the Judicial Chamber “Expect Privacy!”

    Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol.1, Issue 2 (2006) A Call From the Panopticon to the Judicial Chamber “Expect Privacy!” Julia Alpert Gladstone Bryant University Smithfield, RI,USA Abstract Privacy is necessary in order for one to develop physically, mentally and affectively. Autonomy and self definition have been recognized by the United States Supreme Court as being values of privacy. In our technologically advanced, and fear driven society, however, our right to privacy has been severely eroded. Due to encroachment by government and business we have a diminished expectation of privacy. This article examines the detriments to self and society which result from a reduced sphere of privacy, as well as offering a modest suggestion for a method to reintroduce an improved conception of privacy into citizens’ lives. Keywords: Privacy, Technology, Judiciary, Autonomy, Statute INTRODUCTION Citizens often pay scant attention to their privacy rights until a consciousness raising event, such as the late 2005 exposure of the unauthorized wiretapping performed by the United States Executive Branch, heightens their interest and concern to protect previously dormant privacy rights. The scholarly literature on privacy is plentiful which broadly explains privacy as a liberty or property right, or a condition of inner awareness, and explanations of invasions of privacy are also relevant. This article seeks to explain why privacy remains under prioritized in most people’s lives, and yet, privacy is held as a critical, if not, fundamental right. Privacy is defined according to social constructs that evolve with time, but it is valued, differently. It is valued as a means to control one’s life.
  • Issues Paper on Cyber-Crime Affecting Personal Safety, Privacy and Reputation Including Cyber-Bullying (LRC IP 6-2014)

    Issues Paper on Cyber-Crime Affecting Personal Safety, Privacy and Reputation Including Cyber-Bullying (LRC IP 6-2014)

    Issues Paper on Cyber-crime affecting personal safety, privacy and reputation including cyber-bullying (LRC IP 6-2014) BACKGROUND TO THIS ISSUES PAPER AND THE QUESTIONS RAISED This Issues Paper forms part of the Commission’s Fourth Programme of Law Reform,1 which includes a project to review the law on cyber-crime affecting personal safety, privacy and reputation including cyber-bullying. The criminal law is important in this area, particularly as a deterrent, but civil remedies, including “take-down” orders, are also significant because victims of cyber-harassment need fast remedies once material has been posted online.2 The Commission seeks the views of interested parties on the following 5 issues. 1. Whether the harassment offence in section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 should be amended to incorporate a specific reference to cyber-harassment, including indirect cyber-harassment (the questions for which are on page 13); 2. Whether there should be an offence that involves a single serious interference, through cyber technology, with another person’s privacy (the questions for which are on page 23); 3. Whether current law on hate crime adequately addresses activity that uses cyber technology and social media (the questions for which are on page 26); 4. Whether current penalties for offences which can apply to cyber-harassment and related behaviour are adequate (the questions for which are on page 28); 5. The adequacy of civil law remedies to protect against cyber-harassment and to safeguard the right to privacy (the questions for which are on page 35); Cyber-harassment and other harmful cyber communications The emergence of cyber technology has transformed how we communicate with others.