Search

The European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) has a direct impact on research activities, as it raises the awareness of personal rights not only among the scientists but also among the data-subjects scientists process information from. This paper presents the dilemma related to the privacy of audio and video data, compliance with the EU GDPR, and techniques to anonymize and pseudonymize such data. We further discuss issues of "in the wild" personal data collection by focusing on multi-modal collections, mainly of audio, video via these channels. Throughout this paper we define relevant core issues and highlight two challenges of "in the wild" data collection: Internet crawling and public data collecting. In the last section, some exemplary use cases are demonstrating the raised issues, illuminating how GDPR affects the collection of publicly available data; how privacy concerns influence participant behavior, and which deanonymization levels can be reached with what kind of data. The key point we present is that the identity of the participants is revealed in the voice or video signal, while the latter is at the same time the object of the research. One implication is that the research community has to actively disconnect the data from the personal information on the participants. Hence the importance of a process of anonymity or omission of data for research activity. This entail the development of an infrastructure for data access control to enable data sharing among researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses solutions of the recently adopted Digital Content Directive (abbreviated: DCD) with the focus on its major novelty being the possibility of a consumer to provide his personal data in lieu of a price in return for a digital content or a digital service. Though this social phenomenon has been known in practice for quite some time, the DCD is the first instrument of the European Union (abbreviated: EU) that accepted such reality by laying down a legal framework tailor-made to such contractual performance. Prior to its adoption, the main concern was how to reconcile two aspects of personal data: the fact that the right to the protection of personal data presents a fundamental human right, on one hand, and a rising use of such data as an object of contractual performance in the digital environment, on the other hand. The need to conciliate these two dimensions of personal data led to some revisions of the European Commission’s Proposal of the DCD. These changes led, inter alia, to a clear reference in the DCD to the already existing regime for the protection of personal data at the EU level epitomised in the General Data Protection Regulation (abbreviated: GDPR). Apart from relevant solutions of the DCD, the paper also examines arguments favouring the DCD implementation in Serbian legal system, proposing at the same time the most appropriate piece of legislation for that. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Possession of accurate, complete and reliable relevant data on electronic communications traffic and timely access of authorised competent state bodies to such data is without a doubt a useful tool in the fight against modern forms of crime. For that reason, It is justified to establish an obligation for providers of electronic communications services to keep certain data on communications for a certain period of time in the realization of which they mediate and to hand over that data at the request of authorized state bodies, in order to use them for legitimate purposes. For this reason, the Data Retention Directive was adopted in 2006, which Member States were required to transpose into national law However, data retention poses a risk to basic human rights and freedoms, if the regulation establishing this obligation does so without respecting the essence of these rights and freedoms, especially the right to privacy and rights related the processing of personal data for which reason the Court of Justice of the Euro pean Union declared the Directive invalid is 2014. Despite this decision, Member States continue to regulate the obligation to retain data in their national regulations. In this regard the question of compliance of these regulations with the fundamental rights and freedoms and principles of the Union is raised. The subject of the paper is the analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU on this issue after the annulment of the Data Retention Directive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Nisu is the property of Law Faculty in Nis and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article deals with the position of national minorities in the former federal states of the Soviet Union. It deals specifically with the position of the Russian minority in the Baltic countries and in Ukraine. Based on the analysis and comparison, it examines and describes the position of this minority in society and examines and evaluates the observance of its civil and minority rights. The Baltic States are all currently members of the EU and NATO. In this context, the article notes how the standards of human and minority rights protection typical of democratic states in Europe are respected in these countries, as well as the criteria and requirements for the protection of human (civic) and minority rights by the European Union. The article is based on the premise that the standards and criteria that both the European Union and the Council of Europe place for the protection of minorities in these countries in relation to the Russian minority are not met. These countries deliberately do not meet these standards, and there is no response from the EU to such a situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Públic is the property of Revista Catalana de Dret Public and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Annual leave is granted to employees in order for them to rest and to regain efficiency at work. In accordance with Article 31 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 of the Directive 2003/88/EB of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding certain aspects of work time organization (Working Time Directive), employers must guarantee employees at least 4 [work] weeks of paid annual leave. Furthermore, Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania maintains that every employed individual has the right to paid annual leave. The question arises whether this type of constitutional right can be absolute and if, as a result, employees are able to exercise their discretion to decide for themselves how to use this right. Can employers decide to grant or refuse to grant leave based on their own discretion? This article aims to address the content of the right to paid annual leave and its implementation details. In particular, it seeks to verify the extent to which an employee or an employer can affect the implementation of such a right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Latin American Law Review is the property of Universidad de los Andes and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)