 Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
|
|
|
- The relationship between the principle of effectiveness under Art. 47 CFR
and the concept of damages under Art. 82 GDPR-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 169 - 181
Abstract: Key PointsPersonality damages are the archetype of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) damages. Damages for these harms are however not easily recoverable in all Member States. This shortfall is remedied by Article 82 GDPR, which has direct effect and thus provides a direct legal remedy, but does not define the concept of damages. Therefore, it is unclear when a data subject actually suffered actionable damages.This contribution shows that the principle of effectiveness (Article 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR)) precludes the exclusion of certain types of damages. Article 47 CFR also prohibits setting high standards of proof for damages. In this sense it is a part of the concept of damages.Dutch case law points towards a more open system for GDPR damages, which does not seem to violate Article 47 CFR. However, the case law is still relatively new, so it is unclear which circumstances are actually sufficient to award damages.
PubDate: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipad012
Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 3 (2023)
- Personal data and personal safety: re-examining the limits of public data
in the context of doxing-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 182 - 193
Abstract: Key pointsDoxing is a form of cyber harassment that involves the malicious collection and dissemination of personal information, often resulting in threats of violence, loss of employment, and other negative consequences.As social media usage has increased, people have become more willing to share personal information. This trend has made it easier for cyberbullies to collect and share either public or private personal information and publish it online to cause harm. However, people should be able to use the Internet without fear of physical or psychological harm.This article provides various definitions of doxing and explains the methods that are commonly used in doxing.This article examines the criminal offenses of different countries, including the USA, EU, and Turkey, to explore the existing legal framework and identify potential remedies for punishing and preventing the disclosure of personal information with malicious intent.Furthermore, it illustrates how data privacy law, can be used to combat doxing under the purpose limitation principle.Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of the legal values that are threatened by doxing and proposes a perspective for future doxing legislation.
PubDate: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipad011
Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 3 (2023)
- Has the GDPR killed e-government' The “once-only” principle vs the
principle of purpose limitation-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 194 - 206
Abstract: Key PointsAllowing the state to use personal data for different purposes makes our life easier. When we move house or buy a car, a single exchange of data—if accessible to all the institutions concerned—can help ensure that the information that many public authorities have from us is up to date. The notion that the authorities should share with each other information they have already obtained once from citizens has also been enshrined in Estonian law as the ‘once-only principle’ (OOP).The European Union (EU) ministers responsible for e-government have affirmed their commitment to implementing the OOP for key public services also at EU level by the end of 2023.As large-scale data sharing may result in a loss of control of one’s personal data, the OOP’s impact on the right to privacy and on the protection of personal data must be carefully assessed.Success in reaching the OOP objective depends not least on the question of the extent to which this idea is compatible with EU data protection law—in particular, the purpose limitation principle laid down in Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation.Although the associated materials declare the OOP initiatives’ compliance with EU data protection principles, the present analysis shows the legal ambiguity related to processing personal data in this context. The present article offers different approaches to solutions.
PubDate: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipad010
Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 3 (2023)
- Safeguarding privacy and efficacy in e-mental health: policy options in
the EU and Australia-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 207 - 224
Abstract: Key PointsInadequate data protection and privacy practices, along with a lack of demonstrated efficacy, are hindering the beneficial implementation of digital technologies in mental healthcare and the sustainable growth of an e-mental health industry.As the European Union (EU) develops policy actions for a comprehensive mental health strategy, it is crucial to incorporate a strong framework for e-mental health addressing these concerns from the onset.Australia is a frontrunner in e-mental health, its regulatory initiatives can inform the debate due to its more advanced state.While the EU adheres to a strict distinction between medical devices and consumer health/well-being products, Australia adapts the medical devices legislation to e-mental health tools by introducing a ‘conditioned exemption’.Concerning matters of privacy and data protection, however, the EU has suitable legal instruments sui generis (eg a GDPR-code of conduct and/or a GDPR certification scheme)—they just need effective implementation.
PubDate: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipad009
Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 3 (2023)
- The third country problem under the GDPR: enhancing protection of data
transfers with technology-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 225 - 243
Abstract: Key PointsTransfers of personal data from the protected area to third countries have been a continuous saga in the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).The article analyses recent developments related to transfers of personal data to third countries, including shortcomings in the current transfer mechanisms.The role of technology as a safeguard in third-country transfers under the GDPR is then analysed under the different transfer mechanisms.The main contribution of this article is to link an analysis of the legal requirements for transfers of personal data to third countries with a computer science-based analysis of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs) in order to better ensure the overall proportionality, efficiency, and foreseeability in cross-border transfers of personal data to third countries.
PubDate: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipad013
Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 3 (2023)
|
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
