Search results

Argues that online privacy rights of consumers are not absolute rights but joint ownership privileges they share with online marketers. Consumers can voluntarily transfer these privileges to online marketers under certain mutually agreeable conditions. Accordingly, online marketers can facilitate, motivate and compensate such transfers by designing various innovative personalization strategies that, rather than jeopardize the privacy privileges of consumers, would benefit them. Technology and society can progress only through such partnerships. Cites two consistently successful net companies, Dell and eBay, as examples of such partnered personalizations.

This chapter examines technology-facilitated violence from the perspective of international human rights law. It explores current research relating to technology-facilitated violence and then highlights the international human rights instruments that are triggered by the various forms of such violence. Ultimately, it focuses upon international human rights to privacy and to freedom from violence (especially gender-based violence) and the obligations on State and Nonstate actors to address violations of these rights. It argues that adoption of a human rights perspective on technology-facilitated violence better enables us to hold State and Nonstate actors to account in finding meaningful ways to address violence in all of its forms.

Cyber-enabled crimes are on the increase, and law enforcement has had to expand many of their detecting activities into the digital domain. As such, the field of digital forensics has become far more sophisticated over the years and is now able to uncover even more evidence that can be used to support prosecution of cyber criminals in a court of law. Governments, too, have embraced the ability to track suspicious individuals in the online world. Forensics investigators are driven to gather data exhaustively, being under pressure to provide law enforcement with sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Yet, there are concerns about the ethics and justice of untrammeled investigations on a number of levels. On an organizational level, unconstrained investigations could interfere with, and damage, the organization's right to control the disclosure of their intellectual capital. On an individual level, those being investigated could easily have their legal privacy rights violated by forensics investigations. On a societal level, there might be a sense of injustice at the perceived inequality of current practice in this domain.

This paper argues the need for a practical, ethically grounded approach to digital forensic investigations, one that acknowledges and respects the privacy rights of individuals and the intellectual capital disclosure rights of organizations, as well as acknowledging the needs of law enforcement. The paper derives a set of ethical guidelines, and then maps these onto a forensics investigation framework. The framework to expert review in two stages is subjected, refining the framework after each stage. The paper concludes by proposing the refined ethically grounded digital forensics investigation framework. The treatise is primarily UK based, but the concepts presented here have international relevance and applicability.

In this paper, the lens of justice theory is used to explore the tension that exists between the needs of digital forensic investigations into cybercrimes on the one hand, and, on the other, individuals' rights to privacy and organizations' rights to control intellectual capital disclosure.

The investigation revealed a potential inequality between the practices of digital forensics investigators and the rights of other stakeholders. That being so, the need for a more ethically informed approach to digital forensics investigations, as a remedy, is highlighted and a framework proposed to provide this.

The proposed ethically informed framework for guiding digital forensics investigations suggests a way of re-establishing the equality of the stakeholders in this arena, and ensuring that the potential for a sense of injustice is reduced.

Justice theory is used to highlight the difficulties in squaring the circle between the rights and expectations of all stakeholders in the digital forensics arena. The outcome is the forensics investigation guideline, PRECEpt: Privacy-Respecting EthiCal framEwork, which provides the basis for a re-aligning of the balance between the requirements and expectations of digital forensic investigators on the one hand, and individual and organizational expectations and rights, on the other.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a survey piece on the concept of privacy and the justification of privacy rights.

This article reviews each of the following areas: a brief history of privacy; philosophical definitions of privacy along with specific critiques; legal conceptions of privacy, including the history of privacy protections granted in constitutional and tort law; and general critiques of privacy protections both moral and legal.

A primary goal of this article has been to provide an overview of the most important philosophical and legal issues related to privacy. While privacy is difficult to define and has been challenged on legal and moral grounds, it is a cultural universal and has played an important role in the formation of Western liberal democracies.

The paper provides a general overview of the issues and debates that frame this lively area of scholarly inquiry. By facilitating a wider engagement and input from numerous communities and disciplines, it is the authors' hope to advance scholarly debate in this important area.

In care homes concerns about abuse have established a culture where all information pertaining to a person must be shared, and little attention is paid to privacy in its broader sense. The purpose of this paper is to take a human rights perspective and consider how information governance may impact on the health, well-being and quality of life of residents. It proposes a proactive approach and presents a template for a privacy impact assessment which services could use to improve their approach to privacy, protecting the human rights of those in their care, contributing to their independence and improving outcomes.

A review of historical and current thinking about the value of privacy in human services and wider society leads to a series of challenges to the way in which privacy is upheld in residential care services.

Recent preoccupations with data privacy have led to a myopic neglect of broader considerations of privacy. Whilst it continues to be important to protect the confidentiality of personal data and to ensure that residents are protected from abuse, human services that provide 24 hour care in congregated settings must not neglect broader components of privacy.

Privacy impact assessments have been widely used to check whether data privacy is being upheld. The broader concept that might be termed “Big Privacy” is introduced within which data privacy is but one section. It is suggested that big privacy is severely compromised in residential care settings, thus denying residents their human right to privacy. The extent of such violation of rights should be investigated.

Having set out the potential reach of the human right to privacy, important work needs to be done to find out how privacy might be upheld in the real world of congregate residential care. Some service providers may have solutions to the organisational challenges, have addressed staff training needs and revised risk assessment strategies so that privacy is upheld alongside other rights.

Nearly half a million people live in congregate residential care settings in England, and deprivation of privacy is argued to be a significant deprivation of human rights. Occasional tragedies and scandals in congregate settings create pressure for increasing the level of surveillance, and the right to privacy is sacrificed. This paper offers a challenge to this process, arguing that competing rights need to be balanced and privacy is an essential component of a decent quality of life.

Personal growth and development depends to some extent on choice and control over access to privacy. Recent changes in the law regarding data protection have narrowed our thinking about privacy until it is a small concept, largely concerned with data handling. This paper invites consideration of big privacy, and invites congregate residential care settings to consider how a deep and broad definition of privacy could transform these services.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal analysis of some chosen aspects of protection of privacy of employee as one of its personal (personality) rights in labour-law relations so how to follow from the actual legal state of legislation of property protection and other rightful interest of an employer.

Current legislation, in general, provides adequate privacy protection to employees in labour-law relations, but in the opinion of the authors is not quite adequately balanced with adequate legislative protection of property rights and employer private in the current legislative status of employee privacy protection. Employee privacy protection should be balanced by the increased protection of employer the interests who bears responsibility for the results of productive activities towards third parties and public power bodies, but responsible for any damage incurred to his employees. Authors of the paper are aware that the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, the Civil Code, EU legislation and the legal norms of labour law provides, in general, a sufficient guide for the fair and equitable application and interpretation of relevant law norms in the monitored area, next suggest realized legislative changes or additions in the area of employers protection of the interests and property in labour-law relations on the background of employee privacy protection.

The authors are of the opinion that the proposed change is not a denial of constitutional rules and legal provisions for the protection of personality under the Civil Code and consider it to be a balanced and professional experience to apply. Its purpose is to exhaustively identify the reasons for the introduction of control mechanisms, without prejudice to the principle of use only to the extent necessary and proportionate manner.

Re-codified private law after 1st January 2014 is in many cases very a cased interpretation. For the issue of the interests and property protection of the employer on the backgrounds of the employee privacy protection would be appropriate to legislative more elaborate the particular legal passages and chapters of the legal text, and thus reduce the scope interpretation of the court decision. To stimulate discussion on the topic authors propose the following legislative adjustment provisions of §316 paragraph 1 and 3 of the Labor Code. The proposal allows for even that is rarely possible to get an audio recording that an employee in the course of his work, even without prior notice, if it is a compelling reason for involving the exercise and protection of employees.

Employees may not, without the consent of the employer to use it for their personal use, production and employment employer resources including computers nor its telecommunications equipment. Compliance with the ban in the first sentence, the employer is entitled to adequate controls. The employer shall not, except as noted below, interfere with the privacy of employees in workplaces and public areas of the employer that the employee undergoing open or covert surveillance, interception and recording of his telephone calls, checking e-mail or check the correspondence addressed to employees or making video and audiovisual recordings employee during his employment. These control mechanisms employer is entitled to a proportionate manner and to the extent necessary in the following cases: on grounds of legitimate interests and property of the employer against the threat or violation, on grounds of health and property and other employees and other serious reasons. If it is for the employer is no reason that justifies the implementation of control mechanisms under paragraph 2, the employer is obliged to inform employees directly about the extent of control by way of implementation. The obligation to inform employees not arise in cases where there is an imminent risk of injury to the health or property of the employer, the employee, other employees or third parties or in the case of sound recording employees when acquired or used for the exercise or protection of other rights or legally protected interests of others people.

The weaker subordination position of the employee in labour-law relations requires consistent protection and its personal interests towards employer follow from labour-law relations. These regulations have to have particular legal limits so that there was no threatened or even directly touched personal and personality rights of the employee such as honour, human dignity, ethics, morality, reverence, mutual tolerance and labour-law relations in relation to equality with participants with that employer carry responsibility for performance and results do work and it even towards to third persons when it has right to provide effectual protection property and personality rights. The proposal allows for even that is rarely possible to get an audio recording that an employee in the course of his work, even without prior notice, if it is a compelling reason for involving the exercise and protection of employees.

The study focusses on the legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), which are being investigated and debated about several European Union initiatives to manage and regulate Information and Communication Technologies. The goal is to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of adopting AI technology and the ramifications for the articulations of law and politics in democratic constitutional countries. Thus, the study aims to identify socio-legal concerns and possible solutions to protect individuals’ interests. The exploratory study is based on statutes, rules, and committee reports. The study has used news pieces, reports issued by organisations and legal websites. The study revealed computer security vulnerabilities, unfairness, bias and discrimination, and legal personhood and intellectual property issues. Issues with privacy and data protection, liability for harm, and lack of accountability will all be discussed. The vulnerability framework is utilised in this chapter to strengthen comprehension of key areas of concern and to motivate risk and impact mitigation solutions to safeguard human welfare. Given the importance of AI’s effects on weak individuals and groups as well as their legal rights, this chapter contributes to the discourse, which is essential. The chapter advances the conversation while appreciating the legal work done in AI and the fact that this sector needs constant review and flexibility. As AI technology advances, new legal challenges, vulnerabilities, and implications for data privacy will inevitably arise, necessitating increased monitoring and research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the risk arising from technological devices, such as closed circuit television (CCTV) and nuclear power plants and the consequent effect on the rights to privacy and security of individuals.

The paper presents critical and conceptual analyses of CCTV, nuclear power plants and the rights of individuals. It also analyses how communitarianism and liberal individualism would respond to right‐infringements and risk‐imposition. It draws on W.D. Ross's prima facie and actual duties to explain the pre‐eminence of duty when certain duties conflict in a bid to improve technology.

The paper discovers the importance of rights to individuals, particularly the rights to privacy and security. It shows that, in some situations, government's duty to respect the right to the privacy of individuals conflicts with the duty to provide public goods, such as CCTV. The paper, therefore, stresses that one duty has greater moral force than the other. In essence, the more incumbent duty can be employed by government in justifying right‐infringement and risk‐imposition, though this does not disvalue the rights of individuals.

The paper offers insight into ways of addressing questions such as: when is it morally acceptable or justifiable to expose others to risk? When is infringement on people's rights permissible? Also, the paper is relevant to those in the areas of ethics and technology because it offers an ethical analysis of risk‐imposition and right‐infringement by examining how ethical theories, such as communitarianism and liberal individualism, would assess risks resulting from CCTV and nuclear energy. It argues that consent is not enough to justify risk‐imposition and right‐infringement. It concludes by drawing on W.D. Ross's prima facie and actual duties as a means of justifying risk‐imposition and right‐infringement by government.

This paper will provide an overview of the contemporary surveillance environment in the age of Big Data and an insight into the complexities and overlap between security, bodily and informational surveillance as well as the subsequent impacts on privacy and democracy. These impacts include the ethical dilemmas facing librarians and information scientists as they endeavour to uphold principles of equality of access to information, and the support of intellectual freedom in private in an increasingly politicised informational environment. If we accept that privacy is integral to the notion of learning, free thought and intellectual exploration and a crucial element in the separation of the state and the individual in democratic society, then the emergence of the data age and the all-encompassing surveillance and exposure of once private acts will undoubtedly lead to the reimagining of the social and political elements of society.

The purpose of this study is to examine the congruence between policy supply and demand in Internet privacy as moderated by culture.

This study consists of the two parts. The first part qualitatively examines policy harmonization efforts among Asian‐Pacific nations. The second part, based on survey findings, quantitatively analyzes differences between the US and Korean college students in regulatory attitudes toward information privacy. The aim, drawing on regime theory as a departure, is to measure the policy genesis and its effectiveness in operation.

The findings are two‐fold. First, contrary to the expectations, the notions of online privacy rights among the Korean respondents are strongly formed, with the regulatory demands widely shared with the US participants. Second, however, there exists a gap between the beliefs of information privacy rights and daily practices – the duality far more magnified among the Korean respondents.

The results suggest the incongruence of the consensus between the two levels – of policymakers and of online users of different cultures.

While most studies focus on internet policy genesis alone, this paper measures the policy effectiveness in its consumption to capture the operation of cultural values in everyday practices. Policy implications and alternatives for developing nations are discussed in the specific context of Asian‐Pacific nations.