The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Reva B Siegel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
griswold at 50 how conflict entrenched the Right to Privacy
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Reva B SiegelAbstract:We are about to mark the fiftieth anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of contraception, and in the process gave birth to the modern Right to Privacy. How has our understanding of the Constitution’s protection for “liberty” come to include sex and marriage, whether sex in marriage, or same-sex marriage? In what follows, I consider debates over the Right to contraception and its progeny at three points in history: in the 1960s when the Court first decided the Griswold case, in the 1980s “culture war” struggles over Griswold during the Reagan era, and in the present conflicts over the Right to Privacy. Griswold’s story shows how conflict over the Right of Privacy — one of the most fiercely contested Rights in the modern constitutional canon — has helped to entrench the Right to Privacy, to make it endure, and to imbue it with evolving meaning.
-
how conflict entrenched the Right to Privacy
2015Co-Authors: Reva B SiegelAbstract:We are about to mark the fiftieth anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of contraception, in the process giving birth to the modern Right to Privacy. From Griswold’s understanding of “liberty” grew the Right to make decisions about abortion, and the Right to engage in same-sex sex, without coercion by the criminal law. How has our understanding of the Constitution’s protection for “liberty” come to include sex and marriage, whether sex in marriage, or same-sex marriage? In what follows, I will consider debates over the Right to contraception and its progeny at three points in history: in the 1960s when the Court first decided the Griswold case; in 1980s “culture war” struggles over Griswold during the Reagan era; and in current conflicts over the Right to Privacy—in the recently decided Hobby Lobby case and in continuing struggles over same-sex couples’ Right to marry. The story illustrates how the making of constitutional meaning occurs all around us, not only in formal processes of constitution-making or in acts of constitutional interpretation by the Court, but also in day-to-day debates among ordinary Americans. Importantly, Griswold’s story shows how deeply the Constitution’s meaning is shaped by conflict as well as by consent. Griswold’s story demonstrates how conflict over the Right to Privacy—one of the most fiercely contested Rights in the modern constitutional canon—has helped to entrench the Right to Privacy, to make it endure, and to imbue it with evolving meaning.
Fidan Abdurrahimli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
big boss is watching you the Right to Privacy of employees in the context of workplace surveillance
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Fidan AbdurrahimliAbstract:Workplace surveillance is a necessity which was prompt by the development of information communication technologies that offered huge opportunities to employers to monitor their employees at work and even out of work which cause strict concerns for the Privacy of employees. The present thesis examines such concerns of employees arising out of workplace surveillance. The legal protection of Privacy within certain systems, particularly, within the European Convention on Human Rights is considered. After examining the substantive matters of the Right to respect for private life under the Convention, four cases of the European Court of Human Rights concerning employee Privacy at work are studied thoroughly, and an analysis of each case is provided. By such an examination, the scope of protection of the Right to Privacy of employees in the context of workplace surveillance is expounded. Furthermore, certain specific problems regarding the protection of Privacy are highlighted and where relevant, possible solutions are presented.surveillance. (Less)
Lee A Bygrave - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
data protection pursuant to the Right to Privacy in human Rights treaties
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Lee A BygraveAbstract:This paper examines the extent to which the basic principles of data protection laws may be read into provisions in human Rights treaties proclaiming a Right to Privacy. Two such provisions are analysed in detail: Art 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Case law developed pursuant to both provisions indicates that each has the potential to embrace all of the core principles typically found in data protection laws. However, this case law currently falls short of data protection laws in terms of both ambit and prescriptory guidance.
-
data protection pursuant to the Right to Privacy in human Rights treaties
International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 1998Co-Authors: Lee A BygraveAbstract:This paper examines the extent to which the basic principles of data protection laws may be read into provisions in human Rights treaties proclaiming a Right to Privacy. Two such provisions are analysed in detail: Art 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Case law developed pursuant to both provisions indicates that each have the potential to embrace all of the core principles typically found in data protection laws. However, this case law currently falls short of data protection laws in terms of both ambit and prescriptory guidance.
Scharf, Rebecca L. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Drone Invasion: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the Right to Privacy
Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Law, 2019Co-Authors: Scharf, Rebecca L.Abstract:Since the birth of the concept of a legally-recognized Right to Privacy in Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis’ influential 1890 law review article, The Right to Privacy, common law – with the aid of influential scholars -- has massaged the concept of Privacy torts into actionable claims. But now, one of the most innovative technological advancements in recent years, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, has created difficult challenges for plaintiffs and courts navigating common law Privacy tort claims.This Article explores the challenges of prosecution of the specific Privacy tort of intrusion into seclusion involving non-governmental use of drone technology. Specifically, it proposes that drone technology must be an added consideration when determining the two elements of the intrusion into seclusion Privacy tort. The current common law invasion of Privacy tort analysis is not sufficient to protect an individual’s Right to Privacy for torts committed using the modern and complex technology of drones. Thus, considering drone technology must be weaved into analyzing whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of Privacy and whether the intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person.Further, this Article analyzes and evaluates the practical problems that arise in prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the drone-age, and how certain states’ statutes address or fail to address these issues. From determining the owner of the drone in order to name a defendant, to proving intent, it is almost impossible for a plaintiff to survive to establish a successful intrusion upon seclusion claim. Moreover, this Article suggests that statutes may combat many of the problems in prosecuting drone-related Privacy tort claims by incorporating a rebuttable presumption that the defendant intruded upon the plaintiff’s seclusion once the plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case. This presumption is similar to the presumptions found in many state statutes regarding physical damage from torts committed with aircrafts against a person or property. Thus, because the defendant, a prudent drone owner, would be in the best position to disprove the intrusion, the defendant could rebut the claim by introducing such evidence as flight path data, photo of video footage, possession at the time of the alleged intrusion.With the constantly evolving technology and innovation in the age of drones, prosecuting William Prosser’s concept of the “Right to be left alone” when an individual’s Right to Privacy comes with many challenges. Although other scholarship discusses the relationship between drones and Privacy torts, this Article is novel in that it explores the practical issues of prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the age of drones. It further recommends considerations for courts and legislators when the Right to Privacy and drones collide
-
Drone Invasion: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the Right to Privacy
Digital Repository @ Maurer Law, 2019Co-Authors: Scharf, Rebecca L.Abstract:Since the birth of the concept of a legally recognized Right to Privacy in Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis’ influential 1890 law review article, “The Right to Privacy,” common law—with the aid of influential scholars—has massaged the concept of Privacy torts into actionable claims. But now, one of the most innovative technological advancements in recent years, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, has created difficult challenges for plaintiffs and courts navigating common law Privacy tort claims. This Article explores the challenges of prosecution of the specific Privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion involving nongovernmental use of drone technology. Specifically, it proposes that drone technology must be an added consideration when determining the two elements of the intrusion upon seclusion Privacy tort. The current common law invasion of Privacy tort analysis is not sufficient to protect an individual’s Right to Privacy for torts committed using the modern and complex technology of drones. Thus, consideration of drone technology must be weaved into analyzing whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of Privacy and whether the intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person. Further, this Article analyzes and evaluates the practical problems that arise in prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the drone-age, and how certain states’ statutes address or fail to address these issues. From determining the owner of the drone so as to name a defendant, to proving intent, it is almost impossible for a plaintiff to survive to establish a successful intrusion upon seclusion claim. Moreover, this Article suggests statutes may combat many of the problems in prosecuting drone-related Privacy tort claims by incorporating a rebuttable presumption that the defendant intruded upon the plaintiff’s seclusion once the plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case. This presumption is like the presumptions found in many state statutes regarding physical damage from torts committed with aircrafts against a person or property. Thus, because the defendant, a prudent drone owner, would be in the best position to disprove the intrusion, the defendant could rebut the claim by introducing such evidence as flight path data, photo or video footage, or possession at the time of the alleged intrusion. With the constantly evolving technology and innovation in the age of drones, prosecuting William Prosser’s concept of the “Right . . . ‘to be let alone’” when an individual’s Right to Privacy is violated comes with many challenges. Although other scholarship discusses the relationship between drones and Privacy torts, this Article is novel in that it explores the practical issues of prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the age of drones. It further recommends considerations for courts and legislators when the Right to Privacy and drones collide
Graham Greenleaf - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Right to Privacy in asian constitutions
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Graham GreenleafAbstract:This Chapter examines how jurisdictions in East and Southeast Asia protect various aspects of Privacy through their constitutional regimes. It first surveys East Asian jurisdictions, starting with the jurisdictions that are most protective of Privacy Rights, then turns to Southeast Asia, again starting with the jurisdictions that are relatively more protective of Privacy. Finally, certain patterns and highlights are identified from viewing constitutional Privacy Rights in East and Southeast Asian jurisdictions together as a region. Of the jurisdictions considered in this chapter, only two do not provide any apparent constitutional protection of Privacy (Brunei, Laos), but constitutional protections are not justifiable in at least three others (China, North Korea, and Vietnam). Protections are of uncertain existence in Malaysia and Singapore, and untested in the courts in four jurisdictions (Timor Leste, Thailand, Cambodia and Macau SAR). That leaves six North and Southeast Asian jurisdictions where constitutional Privacy protections have been enforced by the courts (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia and the Philippines). The decisions of the Taiwan Constitutional Court, the Korean Constitutional Court, and the Philippines Supreme Court are the most detailed articulations of the protection of Privacy by constitutional courts in Asia. All three courts have recognized strong Privacy protections, particularly as they are based primarily on implied Privacy Rights, but on different issues, ranging from ID card schemes to telecommunications interception, to compulsory fingerprinting. Asian courts with the most developed Privacy jurisprudence frequently use similar language to protect Privacy. Courts have found Privacy to be an implied Right based on protections of dignity and autonomy interests, such as personality development and informational self-determination. In defining valid restrictions on the constitutional Right of Privacy, the courts have adopted strikingly similar legal tests. However, despite there being a wealth of Privacy jurisprudence from some Asian courts, there are no instances of these courts citing each other’s decisions as valuable sources of arguments about Privacy.
-
the un should adopt data protection convention 108 as a global treaty submission on the Right to Privacy in the digital age to the un high commissioner for human Rights to the human Rights council and to the special rapporteur on the Right to Privacy
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Graham GreenleafAbstract:The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has invited submissions on ‘the Right to Privacy in the digital age’. This submission argues that: (i) Data Privacy laws have been enacted globally (now by 124 countries), with average standards closer to the higher ‘European’ (2nd generation) standards than to the lower OECD (1st generation) standards. (ii) Data protection Convention 108 is an open convention, to which any country can apply to accede, not only European countries. Such ‘globalisation’ of Convention 108 has been actively encouraged by the Council of Europe since 2010, with positive results, and 56 UN members will soon be parties to it. It is the only global data protection convention that has any practical prospects of being developed and adopted. (iii) The single best and most effective strategy that the United Nations can adopt to strengthen ‘national legislative and regulatory frameworks concerning the collection, processing, retention or use of personal data’ (as the call for submissions puts it), is to develop a package of measures to align UN policies with data protection Convention 108. Seven specific measures are recommended to create such an alignment.
-
india s draft the Right to Privacy bill 2014 will modi s bjp enact it
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Graham GreenleafAbstract:From 2011-13 there were three significant proposals for a comprehensive data Privacy law in India but none gained the endorsement of the previous government. The overwhelming victory in India’s May 2014 national elections of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) may end the log-jam of legislative inactivity that characterised the last few years of the previous Congress-led government.In February 2014 the previous Bills were joined by the draft The Right to Privacy Bill 2014, a redraft of its 2011 draft Bill by the Committee of Secretaries (CoS), the heads of seven of India’s most powerful Ministries and Departments. This draft Bill represents the current thinking of India’s bureaucracy, and the election of a new government capable of enacting legislation makes it timely to review its main provisions.This article argues that, for residents of India (but not persons overseas), this Bill would, if enacted, provide significant protections of international standards, if they were enforced. That is a significant ‘if’, because the enforcement mechanisms in the current ‘Rules’, particularly the Cyber-Appellate Tribunal (CAT) which this Bill also relies upon, have not functioned for three years. India has no track record whatsoever of enforcing data Privacy laws. It would be up to the proposed data protection authority (DPA) to change that before The Right to Privacy Act would be credible. This brief assessment is not a detailed critical appraisal of the Bill, which would no doubt reveal many points of detail on which it could be improved, but the overall structure of the Bill is sound in theory, and compares well with most data Privacy laws in Asia.A related issue is that the BJP did not have any specific election policy in relation to India’s universal ID numbering system (UID), and so is not committed to scrapping it. BJP Ministers have floated a possible merger of the National Population Register (NPR) being developed by the Registrar General of India (RGI) and the UID. Expanded use of personal identifiers such as the UID are one reason the Notes to the draft 2014 Bill say ‘a need has been felt’ for data Privacy legislation. It remains a strong possibility that these two issues will be dealt with together.
