Search

This thesis explores the factors that influence the US Supreme Court’s decisions to overturn precedent. I argue that the Court is more likely to depart from precedent in cases relating to the right to privacy due to the dynamic nature of privacy rights and their inherent connection to rapidly evolving technology and societal values. As society grapples with digital surveillance, data collection, and personal freedoms, the question of how the Supreme Court navigates past precedents in the face of new realities becomes increasingly relevant. I find that privacy precedents are more likely to be altered than other subject matter. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the common law system’s adaptability in the face of contemporary challenges by examining the Court’s decisions to overturn precedents based on subject matter.

If I decide to disclose information about myself, this act may undermine other people's ability to conceal information about them. Such dependencies are called privacy dependencies in the literature. Some say that privacy dependencies generate moral duties to avoid sharing information about oneself. If true, we argue, then it is sometimes justified for others to impose harm on the person sharing information to prevent them from doing so. In this paper, we first show how such conclusions arise. Next, we show that the existence of such a dependency between the moral significance you are inclined to attribute to privacy dependencies and judgments about permissible self-defense puts pressure on at least some ways of spelling out the idea that privacy dependencies ought to constrain our data-sharing conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term "privacy" is defined broadly and includes many different ideas. The "right to privacy" comprises "right to be forgotten." Today's world of digitalization, social media, media trial and information technology, this right has become more important especially when any person can get famous or we can say infamous, in seconds. Trending on social media is a new trend nowadays, but with its speedy popularity and easy fame it also brings with it many downsides. A notion in law known as the "right to be forgotten" essentially gives someone the right to request that their personal information be deleted through websites and search engines, and other online sources. The right to forget is a component of one's right to privacy. The right to privacy has been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court as a basic freedom in the historic decision of Justice K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India1. Article will examine the significance Regarding the contemporary right to be forgotten, how to exercise it, how to recognize it, what might happen if this right is denied, and, finally, how challenging it is to exercise in this day and age where information is readily available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Illicit Financial Flows (IFF) – such as corruption and money laundering – have a significant negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights. Combating IFF is an integral part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. SDG 16 explicitly promulgates the relation between the rule of law, social security and the fight against IFF. Cross-border data access and exchange by enforcement authorities is crucial to map and disrupt IFF, punish suspects and take away their criminally earned assets. At the same time, human rights restrain national enforcement authorities when combatting IFF. States must abstain from undue interference with individuals’ privacy rights, such as the storage of information relating to an individual’s private life and the sharing of such information. Pursuant to article 8 ECHR, interference with the right to respect for private – in accordance with the law – is only permissible if this is necessary in a democratic society, e.g. in the interests of national security and public safety. In this article we explore the balance between individual rights and states’ responsibilities in the fight against IFF; between privacy and the common good of fighting bad money. To what extent may privacy concerns be an obstacle to investigate global IFF? Our conclusion is that there is an imbalance. We suggest that human dignity and human security should be given more weight in the balancing of human rights in this context.

Personal data leakages have been experienced by both Indonesia and South Korea. To ensure the protection of privacy rights relating to personal data, both countries have promulgated special laws, namely the Indonesian Personal Data Protection Law (PDP Law) and the South Korean Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). This study aims to compare the two laws to ascertain their similarities and differences by adopting a comparative law approach. The study found that similarities exist in the two laws. They are to protect personal data and confer rights on data subjects. In the absence of explicit consent given by data subjects, data controllers and processors are prohibited from collecting and processing the data with some exceptions. They also mandate a special institution that is tasked to investigate and sanction data controllers and processors when they conduct data infringement. There are inherent differences in the two laws. PIPA is designed to be the framework legislation and PDP is designed to be a special statute. Additionally, PIPA mandates the institution dealing with personal data protection without referring to any other law but the Act itself. PDP Law clearly states that further provisions relating to this institution will be governed by Presidential Regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background In 2021, a Chinese court, based on the newly enacted Civil Code, first revoked a marriage license due to the spouse’s failure to disclose their HIV infection before the marriage. This landmark case ignited a fresh debate on whether people living with HIV (PLHIV) have a legal duty to inform their spouses and sexual partners. Advances in medicine have partially isolated HIV transmission from sexual contact, extending the legal basis for the obligation to disclose beyond disease prevention. This study investigates some possibly unforeseen challenges for PLHIV in China to fulfill this duty, and the outcomes of their decisions in light of the government’s goal to promote health. Methods This study aims to provide a detailed examination of the legal provisions and practices concerning partner notification among PLHIV in China. A mixed-methods research approach was employed between 2019 and 2020, combining questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, and participatory observations. A total of 433 valid responses were obtained through a questionnaire posted on a Chinese online platform for PLHIV. Following the collection and random coding of the questionnaire data, 40 individuals living with HIV were selected for in-depth interviews. Subsequently, a six-month field investigation was conducted in Guan ai jia yuan (Caring Home) in Jinhua City to further explore this issue. Results A considerable proportion of PLHIV exhibit a high rate of disclosure to their spouses (nearly 80%). In the context of sexual partners, 56% of PLHIV stated that their sexual partners were aware of their HIV infection. Whether married PLHIV disclosing to their spouses or unmarried/divorced PLHIV disclosing to sexual partners, however, a substantial majority expressed apprehension about the potential disruption to their relationships that the disclosure might cause. The sole exception was observed among married PLHIV in extramarital relationships who demonstrated a slightly diminished level of concern in this context. Reasons for non-disclosure predominantly included undetectable viral load and the adoption of protective measures. Discussion This study reveals that a prevailing “HIV stigma” hinders PLHIV from voluntarily fulfilling the disclosure duties bestowed by Article 38 of the Regulations on the Prevention and Control of HIV/AIDS, and the unclear legal provisions of the new Civil Code play a significant role in this regard. Addressing this issue necessitates not only increasing societal tolerance toward PLHIV and reducing instances of social exclusion but also shifting the legal basis of disclosure duties from disease prevention to rights and obligations within the legal relationships of the parties involved. When it comes to the recipients of disclosure, for instance, it is crucial to differentiate between spouses and sexual partners. As for PLHIV failing to fulfill their disclosure duties, apart from interventions involving indirect notifications, the addition of further legal responsibilities may not be advisable. Intentional transmission actions, on the other hand, should still be subject to severe penalties. Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

In today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, the delicate equilibrium between security imperatives and the protection of individual privacy is under intense scrutiny. This abstract explores the multifaceted challenges posed by the proliferation of surveillance technologies and their impact on human rights. As governments and corporations harness the power of surveillance for security purposes, concerns over privacy violations, data breaches, and potential abuses of power have come to the forefront. This abstract delves into the evolving legal and ethical frameworks governing surveillance practices, highlighting key debates and global perspectives. It also examines the implications for fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression, privacy, and assembly. By examining case studies, emerging technologies, and international efforts to strike a balance between security and privacy, this abstract seeks to shed light on the complex dynamics of this contemporary issue and proposes potential avenues for reconciling these often conflicting interests. Ultimately, it calls for a thoughtful and inclusive dialogue that can guide the development of responsible surveillance policies that respect individual rights and uphold the principles of a free and democratic society.

Background: In 2021, a Chinese court, based on the newly enacted Civil Code, first revoked a marriage license due to the spouse's failure to disclose their HIV infection before the marriage. This landmark case ignited a fresh debate on whether people living with HIV (PLHIV) have a legal duty to inform their spouses and sexual partners. Advances in medicine have partially isolated HIV transmission from sexual contact, extending the legal basis for the obligation to disclose beyond disease prevention. This study investigates some possibly unforeseen challenges for PLHIV in China to fulfill this duty, and the outcomes of their decisions in light of the government's goal to promote health. Methods: This study aims to provide a detailed examination of the legal provisions and practices concerning partner notification among PLHIV in China. A mixed-methods research approach was employed between 2019 and 2020, combining questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, and participatory observations. A total of 433 valid responses were obtained through a questionnaire posted on a Chinese online platform for PLHIV. Following the collection and random coding of the questionnaire data, 40 individuals living with HIV were selected for in-depth interviews. Subsequently, a six-month field investigation was conducted in Guan ai jia yuan (Caring Home) in Jinhua City to further explore this issue. Results: A considerable proportion of PLHIV exhibit a high rate of disclosure to their spouses (nearly 80%). In the context of sexual partners, 56% of PLHIV stated that their sexual partners were aware of their HIV infection. Whether married PLHIV disclosing to their spouses or unmarried/divorced PLHIV disclosing to sexual partners, however, a substantial majority expressed apprehension about the potential disruption to their relationships that the disclosure might cause. The sole exception was observed among married PLHIV in extramarital relationships who demonstrated a slightly diminished level of concern in this context. Reasons for non-disclosure predominantly included undetectable viral load and the adoption of protective measures. Discussion: This study reveals that a prevailing "HIV stigma" hinders PLHIV from voluntarily fulfilling the disclosure duties bestowed by Article 38 of the Regulations on the Prevention and Control of HIV/AIDS, and the unclear legal provisions of the new Civil Code play a significant role in this regard. Addressing this issue necessitates not only increasing societal tolerance toward PLHIV and reducing instances of social exclusion but also shifting the legal basis of disclosure duties from disease prevention to rights and obligations within the legal relationships of the parties involved. When it comes to the recipients of disclosure, for instance, it is crucial to differentiate between spouses and sexual partners. As for PLHIV failing to fulfill their disclosure duties, apart from interventions involving indirect notifications, the addition of further legal responsibilities may not be advisable. Intentional transmission actions, on the other hand, should still be subject to severe penalties. Clinical trial number: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this digital era, several aspects of our lives are made easier because of the presence and development of technology. One of the examples of it is the creation of various kinds of electronic systems, whether in the form of applications, websites, or portals. In using the systems, the personal data of users is usually required for each of these electronic systems. Personal data is usually used as an identity which is needed to identify a person in the process of the electronic system. Moreover, personal data is considered a sensitive matter since it concludes the information related to a person’s identity, while this information is part of the right to privacy. It is undeniable that a person’s data can be used by irresponsible parties who can harm the owner’s data, especially regarding their privacy rights. Therefore, legal protection is needed for this data, especially in the digital era in which personal data is widely used for various purposes such as electronic systems need or purposes. This study aims to find out and analyze the ideal protection and regulation of legal concepts related to personal data as the fulfillment of privacy rights in the digital era in Indonesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Yearbook of Antitrust & Regulatory Studies is the property of University of Warsaw 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.)

Copyright of Taiwan Financial & Economic Law Review is the property of Charitable Trust Fund for Taiwan Finance, Enterprise & Banking Law 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.)

Often, when we share information about ourselves, we contribute to people learning personal things about others. This may happen because what we share about ourselves can be used to infer personal information about others. Such dependencies have become known as privacy dependencies in the literature. It is sometimes claimed that the scope of the right to privacy should be expanded in light of such dependencies. For example, some have argued that inferring information about others can violate their right to privacy. Others have argued that sharing personal information about yourself that license such inferences can by itself violate the right to privacy. In this paper, we argue that the latter view should be rejected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article traces the European Union (EU)'s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and implication in the Europe. In the era of global digitalisation, the right to respect private life, communication and the home has become a matter of protection. Protecting the right to privacy is a responsibility of a state which includes privacy of personal information, e.g. birth, messages, phone call and number and emails. Likewise, this study explains EU concern's about its citizens' privacy and the recent inclusion of the GDPR for the protection of natural persons. The article aims to explore individual fundamental rights and implications in the digital age, as well as cooperation data rules between companies and public bodies. At the same time, questions arise about the rightful implication of GDPR and the right to privacy of the public through protection, especially from tech companies. For validating the argument, various qualitative research methods were applied. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a serious question over privacy rights protection by the government, which supports our findings that EU GDPR has a long road to go and have challenges. Its credibility of lawful data activities is also a matter of concern and a reliable promise by the member states and the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study is mostly about making and using advanced computer vision techniques and voice analysis algorithms to keep an eye on security threats in prisons and find them in real time. The main goal is to make correctional facilities safer and more secure by finding and stopping unauthorized ownership of equipment, suspicious behavior between prisoners and visitors, violent behavior between prisoners, and strange events and activities. With the help of computer vision technology and voice pattern analysis, the system aims to change the way prisons keep people safe by giving them more ways to be watched while still respecting their right to privacy. The study looks at how well these technologies work compared to traditional methods, with a focus on making detection and reaction faster and more accurate. The results and methods of this study add to the creation of a monitoring system that is reliable, efficient, and puts the safety of prisoners, visitors, and staff at correctional facilities first. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The era of technological disruption is marked by massive use of digital services and devices which always require submission of personal data free of charge. Digital companies can use personal data to identify behavior of their users freely without supervision. This is exacerbated by vulnerability of personal data protection due to hacking, mining or misuse of personal data, as happened with Facebook, Yahoo, Tokopedia, Bukalapak. In this phase, government has to active to provide protection which in Indonesian context is realized through formation of PDP Act as mandated by 1945 Constitution of Indonesia. This research intends to examine importance of PDP Act and its developments in Indonesia for digital society protection. This normative-empirical research uses primary data (observations and interviews) and secondary data (regulation searches and textual literature) that are processed qualitatively by content analysis. The idea of protecting personal data originates from recognition of the right to privacy that has developed and been institutionalized in various legal documents, both national, regional and international. In Indonesia, prior to enactment of PDP Act, personal data protection arrangements were scattered sporadically and sectoral which caused personal data protection to not be optimal. PDP Act complements and refines previous regulations to provide certainty for protection of personal data in Indonesia. The existence of PDP Act gives important meaning as a manifestation of state's commitment to provide protection, guarantee order and security of digital society, optimize law enforcement and reform personal data processing practices and encourage changes in society's culture to respect personal data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the adoption of telemedicine services in Indonesia has surged, yet this increased utilization has raised significant concerns regarding patient privacy and data confidentiality, with ongoing incidents of personal data breaches despite existing regulations. This research addresses two key questions: the implementation of telemedicine in Indonesia during the pandemic and the regulatory framework for protecting patients' privacy rights. Utilizing a descriptive normative research method with a qualitative approach, the findings reveal a notable lack of strict sanctions for breaches of patient confidentiality and no explicit accountability for unauthorized data use. Consequently, there is an urgent need for dedicated regulations to safeguard patients' privacy rights in telemedicine, alongside the expedited legislative process for the Personal Data Protection Bill.

Human rights in the context of new technologies have been gradually deteriorating in recent decades, and this process has been further accelerated by the pandemic. New technologies can still positively using them and turning them into a strategic asset. While three may be legitimate security-related uses, it is also used to suppress freedoms in totalitarian societies. Through new technologies, human rights have been given new opportunities to violet in various ways. Therefore, they carry certain risks and unknown long-term effects. Here we examine the digitization of legal practice, problems with the use of internet platforms and their ethics, but also the rights of individuals in the benefits of using scientific's and technological progress. Problems in the field of artificial intelligence and neuro-law, as well as information and telecommunication technologies are discussed. Through these areas and state oversight, there are greater opportunities for the right to violate the right to privacy.

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas 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.)

Immigration data form a substantial part of the border protection between countries. However, the quality and integrity of each country’s immigration data varies greatly in terms of technology and regulation. A country that has a weak a legal framework on data protection has proven to be easily abused by irresponsible parties. Including when Indonesia tries to carry out tracing by synchronizing the data in the Peduli Lindungi application with immigration data, there will be a potential violation of the privacy rights of individuals. Hence, this study applies a normative and empirical (mix) legal research methodology to analyze two keys issues: what are the advantages of synchronizing the domestic tracing application called Peduli Lindungi to the immigration data? and what kind of legal framework to prevent the misuse of personal data in Indonesia? With regulatory and comparative approaches, this study concludes without powerful legal framework, there will be no legal assurance to the promotion of privacy rights in the synchronization and the use of immigration data for health tracing purposes. From the empirical side, Indonesian’s current policy does not enable monitoring or evaluating authority to scrutinize ministerial activities in collecting and utilizing personal data. Moreover, by considering several problems of data breach in Indonesia, a single and unified data protection law is needed to integrate and provide uniformity of implementation for data protection. Keywords: data protection law, immigration, privacy rights. Mendukung Undang-Undang Perlindungan Data Keimigrasian Di Indonesia Dan Pemanfaatannya Untuk Pelacakan Kontak Abstrak Data imigrasi merupakan bagian penting dari perlindungan perbatasan antar negara. Namun, kualitas dan integritas data keimigrasian masing-masing negara sangat bervariasi dari segi teknologi dan regulasi. Negara yang memiliki kerangka hukum perlindungan data yang lemah terbukti mudah disalahgunakan oleh pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab. Termasuk ketika Indonesia mencoba melakukan tracing dengan menyinkronkan data pada aplikasi Peduli Lindungi dengan data keimigrasian, maka akan berpotensi terjadi pelanggaran terhadap hak privasi individu. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini menggunakan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif dan empiris (campuran) untuk menganalisis dua masalah utama: apa keuntungan dari sinkronisasi aplikasi penelusuran dalam negeri bernama Peduli Lindungi terhadap data keimigrasian? dan apa kerangka hukum untuk mencegah penyalahgunaan data pribadi di Indonesia? Dengan pendekatan regulasi dan komparatif, studi ini menyimpulkan tanpa kerangka hukum yang kuat, tidak akan ada jaminan hukum untuk promosi hak privasi dalam sinkronisasi dan penggunaan data imigrasi untuk tujuan penelusuran kesehatan. Dari sisi empiris, kebijakan Indonesia saat ini tidak memungkinkan kewenangan pemantauan atau evaluasi untuk meneliti kegiatan kementerian dalam mengumpulkan dan memanfaatkan data pribadi. Selain itu, dengan mempertimbangkan beberapa masalah pelanggaran data di Indonesia, diperlukan undang-undang perlindungan data yang tunggal dan terpadu untuk mengintegrasikan dan memberikan keseragaman implementasi perlindungan data. Kata kunci: undang-undang perlindungan data, keimigrasian, hak privasi.

Lauritz Munch and Björn Lundgren have recently replied to a paper published by us in this journal. In our original paper, we defended a novel version of the so-called 'control theory' of the moral right to privacy. We argued that control theorists should define 'control' as what we coined 'Negative Control'. Munch and Lundgren have recently provided a range of interesting and challenging objections to our view. Independently of each other, they give almost identical counterexamples to our definition of Negative Control. In this comment, we show that while the counterexamples are genuine counterexamples, they do not force us to abandon the idea of Negative Control. Furthermore, we reply to two additional objections raised by Lundgren. One of these replies involves giving a new account of what the relation is between the concept of privacy and the right to privacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open data has revolutionized knowledge-sharing, providing economic and cultural benefits worldwide. However, releasing government, personal, or research data often raises concerns about data security and ethical implications, leading to infringements on privacy and related disputes. The Privacy Protection Framework for Open Data (PPFOD) is proposed to address these challenges. This framework aims to establish clear privacy protection measures and safeguard individuals' privacy rights. Existing privacy protection practices were examined using content analysis, and 36 indicators across five dimensions were developed and validated through an empirical study with 437 participants. The PPFOD offers comprehensive guidelines for data openness, empowering individuals to identify privacy risks, guiding businesses to ensure legal compliance and prevent data leaks, and assisting libraries and data institutions in implementing effective privacy education and training programs, fostering a more privacy-conscious and secure data era. • A Privacy Protection Framework for Open Data (PPFOD) is presented with five dimensions and 36 measures. • The PPFOD was developed using content analysis and questionnaire study methods. • The PPFOD empowers individuals and guides businesses in ensuring privacy. • Data processing requires the utmost attention to privacy protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Physical Education / Tiyu Xuekan is the property of Journal of Physical Education Editorial Office 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.)

Purpose: The primary objective of the present research is to identify the basic tools and restrictions concerning the protection of privacy and personal data in the EU and China as two fundamentally different cultural systems. Based on the socio-cultural analysis of backgrounds, trends and expert assessments, the research aims to examine whether privacy protection standards, such as those provided by the GDPR in the EU, are sufficiently robust to endure the digital age. Two different cultural frameworks have been analysed in order to understand their influence on practical behaviours regarding the democratic safeguards in privacy rights enforcement in the EU compared with China. This is accomplished by comparing social control in the EU and the social credit system in China. Design/Methodology/Approach: Considering the administrative context, a combined qualitative approach is applied, including normative and dogmatic methods, literature analysis, sociological and historical methods, expert interviews, and comparative and axiological methods. Findings: The results of both theoretical and empirical parts of the research suggest that the stricter regulation in the EU compared to China -- in the sense of more consistent protection of privacy and personal data as well as transparency rights -- can be attributed to its democratic protection of human rights and more definitive regulations, particularly the GDPR. These major differences seem to create an even deeper gap in the future, to be explored scientifically and in practice. The authors conclude that authorities must actively guarantee the rights related to privacy and personal data protection, or else effective governance will lead to a surveillance society and erosion of individuals' freedom as a valuable civilizational asset. Academic contribution to the field: The research contributes to administrative science by addressing one of the key concepts of modern public governance, namely the collision between the principles of effectiveness and transparency on the one hand and privacy on the other. The use of scientific methods paves the way for further comparisons. Practical Implications: The article provides a concise overview of the relevant literature and an analysis of the rules that underpin the implementation, evaluation and improvement of regulations, especially in the light of ICT development, e.g. in times of the Covid-19 pandemic. Originality/Value: The paper bridges the gap created by the differences in the understanding of privacy and public governance in the field in the EU and China based on cultural differences. The usual general or merely law- or technology-based analyses are upgraded with a combination of various research methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the lacunae in contemporary understandings of the right to privacy which genetic data exposes. In particular, the article argues that the nature of genetic data challenges modern, individualistic conceptions of privacy which have come to dominate human rights law in the twenty-first century. The article suggests that the seeds of a new understanding of privacy which integrates existing individualistic understanding with the need to acknowledge the relational nature of modern privacy can be located in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and Court of Justice of the European Union. The article offers some initial thoughts on how a relational theory of privacy based on this jurisprudence would function, and argues that further engagement with how to reconcile the collective impacts of genetic data processing and individualistic understandings of privacy is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the views of Internet users concerning the protection of their rights on the Internet. The Web survey, conducted by the snowball sampling, included 783 Internet users who expressed their views regarding the ways the state (Serbia) and private agents (Facebook and Google) relate to the right of freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet. Also, the survey was used to examine the individual responsibility of users when it comes to the use of Internet services. Several hypotheses suggested that Internet users in Serbia do not have confidence in the country and private actors on the issue of protecting their rights. However, users also do not demonstrate a satisfactory level of individual responsibility. The most important findings indicate that: 1) only one-sixth of the respondents consider that the Government of the Republic of Serbia does not violate the privacy of Internet users; 2) almost half of the respondents do not feel free to express their views criticizing the government; 3) almost 90% of users are not satisfied how Facebook protects their privacy, while it is 1% lower in the case of Google; 4) a third of respondents answered positively to the question whether they had read terms of use of the analyzed companies, but half of them did not give a correct answer to the main questions; 5) only 8.9% of respondents who claimed to have read terms of use are aware of the fact that Facebook shares their data with third parties.

Do privacy rights restrict what is permissible to infer about others based on statistical evidence? This paper replies affirmatively by defending the following symmetry: there is not necessarily a morally relevant difference between directly appropriating people's private information—say, by using an X-ray device on their private safes—and using predictive technologies to infer the same content, at least in cases where the evidence has a roughly similar probative value. This conclusion is of theoretical interest because a comprehensive justification of the thought that statistical inferences can violate privacy rights is lacking in the current literature. Secondly, the conclusion is of practical interest due to the need for moral assessment of emerging predictive algorithms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under United States patent law, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty established the patentability of human-made life forms, except for those encompassing a human organism. The America Invents Act of 2011, and decisions from lower courts such as Moore v. Regents of University of California, reaffirm the unpatentability of human organisms and limit an individual's rights to their own genetic material. Prior to Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc, which struck down the patentability of human genes as well, the decision in Diamond led to the proliferation of gene patents and the growth of the global biotechnology market. While the debate over the patenting of human genetic material, and individual rights, rages on, DNA-gathering companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com routinely utilize their customer's genetic material for multi-million dollar pharmaceutical research. This research not only raises ethical concerns, but can also pose a potentially dangerous biosecurity threat based on the many ways this genetic material can be used to target individuals, groups, and nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to describe the problems faced by the party who feels aggrieved or impaired by his personal rights due to media coverage. The dilemma arises because based on the legal system of the press, the media are given protection from lawsuits. This is to guarantee the position of freedom of the press in a democratic system. However, the impact that has been caused due to defamation cannot be resolved simply by using the right of reply. This study aims to explore how legal mechanisms provide justice for victims due to media behavior in line with the principle of press freedom in Indonesia. The results show that the Indonesian Press Law does not have a clear system of legal liability. The rule of conduct in the Press Law is absolutely not regulated. Thus, the right of reply that is contained in the media consciousness or "order" of the Press Council is not a binding and final decision because the Press Council's body only gives an opinion. Violation of the ethics of the press should not only have a moral sanction but also a legal sanction with all its consequences.

This study contributes to the nascent behavioral governance scholarship by experimentally testing whether individuals' likelihood of lifting their privacy rights in the face of a health crisis varies based on the public versus private nature of the entity accessing their personal data and the length of time during which records can be used. We run an online, randomized control trial with 1,500 citizens representative of the Italian general adult population. Results show a significant increase in subjects' willingness to grant access to personal records when the entity analyzing data is public rather than private. Further, the propensity to consenting is higher when access to personal data is granted for a limited rather than an unlimited period of time. We discuss how these patterns of results change remarkably across geographic areas within the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we argue that there is at least a pro tanto reason to favor the control account of the right to privacy over the access account of the right to privacy. This conclusion is of interest due to its relevance for contemporary discussions related to surveillance policies. We discuss several ways in which the two accounts of the right to privacy can be improved significantly by making minor adjustments to their respective definitions. We then test the improved versions of the two accounts on a test case, to see which account best explains the violation that occurs in the case. The test turns out in favor of the control account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the design of the legal and regulatory framework for using artificial intelligence (AI) in the financial services markets to enhance access to finance (financial inclusion). The author argues that the development of AI should continue to adhere to the regulatory objectives of market safety, consumer protection, and market integrity. However, to ensure equality and fairness, access to finance should be made a clear policy choice. In the first part, the author discusses how AI can lead to systemic risks and market manipulation on trading platforms. For example, by examining the use of algorithms for trading on the capital market, the author discerns the regulatory objectives and the possible methods of regulation for peer-to-peer platforms. In the second part, the author discusses how the use of AI to provide consumers with investment advice, such as financial advice provided from robo-advisers, can close the investment advisory gap and provide consumers with access to finance. The current regime does not provide adequate protection to financial consumers in this regard. In the third part, the author discusses how AI can be used as a form of RegTech to streamline compliance processes, thereby increasing competition in financial markets and providing a benefit to consumers. However, this use may be in conflict with privacy, data protection, and ethical concerns. The author makes policy recommendations and suggests some directions for governance in the use of AI in financial services to enhance access to finance. The findings of this paper are relevant to research on the future governance of AI in financial services, public policy innovation, and urban development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While autonomy arguments provide a compelling foundation for free speech, they also support individual privacy rights. Considering how speech and privacy may be justified, I will argue that the speech necessary for self-government does not need to include details that would violate privacy rights. Additionally, I will argue that if viewed as a kind of intangible property right, informational privacy should limit speech and expression in a range of cases. In a world where we have an overabundance of content to consume, much of which could be called "information pollution," and where there are numerous platforms to broadcast one's expressions, it is increasingly difficult to maintain that speech should trump privacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aside from making a few weak, and hopefully widely shared claims about the value of privacy, transparency, and accountability, we will offer an argument for the protection of privacy based on individual self-interest and prudence. In large part, this argument will parallel considerations that arise in a prisoner's dilemma game. After briefly sketching an account of the value of privacy, transparency, and accountability, along with the salient features of a prisoner's dilemma games, a game-theory analysis will be offered. In a game where both players want privacy and to avoid transparency and the associated accountability, the dominant action will be to foist accountability and transparency on the other player while attempting to retain one's own privacy. Simply put, if both players have the ability or power to make the other more accountable and transparent, they will do so for the same reasons that player's defect in a prisoner's dilemma game. Ultimately this will lead to a sub-optimal outcome of too much accountability and transparency. While there are several plausible solutions to prisoner dilemma games, we will offer both technical, as well as, law and policy solutions. We need to change the payoffs of the game so that is it in everyone's interest to balance privacy and accountability rather than foisting transparency on others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of International Relations / Medzinarodne Vztahy is the property of University of Economics in Bratislava, Faculty of International Relations 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 emergence of a preventive cybersecurity paradigm that aims to eliminate the sources of cybercrime threats is becoming an increasingly necessary complement to the current self-defensive cybersecurity systems. One concern associated with adopting such preventive measures is the risk of privacy infringement. Therefore, it is necessary to design the future Internet infrastructure so that it can appropriately balance preventive cybersecurity measures with privacy protections. This research proposes to design the Internet infrastructure using the preventive cybersecurity measures of the Bright Internet, namely preventive cybersecurity protocol and identifiable anonymity protocol, and ten privacy rights derived from Europe's General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). We then analyze the legitimacy of the five steps of the preventive cybersecurity protocol and the four features of the identifiable anonymity protocol from the perspectives of ten privacy rights. We address the legitimacy from the perspective of potential victims' self-defense rights. Finally, we discuss four potential risks that may occur to the innocent senders and proposed resilient recovery procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]