How to control interception-does the UK strike the right balance?

This Article critically analyses the regime for intercepting the content of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the light of the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Kennedy v the UK. It looks at the safeguards for privacy protection provided such as the requirement for a warrant and the roles of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the Interception of Communications Commissioner and whether these safeguards are compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.     

Pricing privacy – the right to know the value of your personal data

The commodification of digital identities is an emerging reality in the data-driven economy. Personal data of individuals represent monetary value in the data-driven economy and are often considered a counter performance for “free” digital services or for discounts for online products and services. Furthermore, customer data and profiling algorithms are already considered a business asset and protected through trade secrets. At the same time, individuals do not seem to be fully aware of the monetary value of their personal data and tend to underestimate their economic power within the data-driven economy and to passively succumb to the propertization of their digital identity. An effort that can increase awareness of consumers/users on their own personal information could be making them aware of the monetary value of their personal data. In other words, if individuals are shown the “price” of their personal data, they can acquire higher awareness about their power in the digital market and thus be effectively empowered for the protection of their information privacy. This paper analyzes whether consumers/users should have a right to know the value of their personal data. After analyzing how EU legislation is already developing in the direction of propertization and monetization of personal data, different models for quantifying the value of personal data are investigated. These models are discussed, not to determine the actual prices of personal data, but to show that the monetary value of personal data can be quantified, a conditio-sine-qua-non for the right to know the value of your personal data. Next, active choice models, in which users are offered the option to pay for online services, either with their personal data or with money, are discussed. It is concluded, however, that these models are incompatible with EU data protection law. Finally, practical, moral and cognitive problems of pricing privacy are discussed as an introduction to further research. We conclude that such research is needed to see to which extent these problems can be solved or mitigated. Only then, it can be determined whether the benefits of introducing a right to know the value of your personal data outweigh the problems and hurdles related to it.     

Germany's ‘Right to be forgotten’ – between the freedom of expression and the right to informational self-determination

Although never having defined it explicitly, German law and jurisprudence imparted a right to be forgotten which could be described as a right to delete long ago. Its basis can be found in the constitution where it is torn between the freedom of expression and the right to informational self-determination. Also, German legislature introduced non-constitutional provisions ensuring the deletion of personal data in specific cases that are applied regularly. This article aims to give an overview of the “German” right to be forgotten, its legal framework and its application in court.     

Civilian uses of unmanned aerial vehicles and the threat to the right to privacy – An Israeli case study

In recent years we have witnessed a growing demand for the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“UAVs”) in civilian contexts. Government authorities (such as law enforcement agencies), corporations and private individuals have identified the advantages inherent in the use of UAVs. At the same time, corporations marketing and manufacturing UAVs for civilian purposes, and the industries that support these manufacturers, have identified the enormous economic potential which may be derived from the sale and maintenance of UAVs (and the cameras and other equipment assembled into them). Hence, in the coming years, we will undoubtedly witness a rapid expansion of the civilian use of UAVs.     

Is the medicine right?

Is asking the Better Regulation Agenda (BRA) to answer the same preconditions it requires for any regulatory action a proper treatment? Does any assessment of the agenda necessarily imply a thorough definition of the costs and the benefits deriving from its application or is it enough to provide a few key insights to perform it? Is the BRA really so ideological, deriving from “a liberal analytical framework that considers no regulation/state intervention” as the preferred option? Is regulatory quality an issue that “cannot realistically be solved”? Does the principle of subsidiarity as a policy objective need some revision? Several questions come to mind when reading a very thought‐provoking article that is very critical of the BRA but that in the end recognises some of its main qualities.     

HPSA and the Anti-Kickback safe harbor: are we sending doctors to the right neighborhoods?

This article explores the problems within a niche area of health law, the Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) safe harbor of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The author advocates for its removal by discussing how the HPSA designation is being used incorrectly to curb fraudulent behavior and how the current provision serves few hospitals. The author concludes by suggesting innovative solutions to remedy the problems with the current HPSA designation system.