The retention of personal information online: A call for international regulation of privacy law

New technologies permit online businesses to reduce expenses and increase efficiency by, for example, storing information in “the cloud”, engaging in online tracking and targeted advertising, location and tracking technologies, and biometrics. However, the potential for technology to facilitate long term retention of customers' personal information raises concerns about the competing right of individuals to the privacy of their personal information. Although the European Commission has recently released a proposal for regulation to “provide a data subject with the right to be forgotten and to erasure”, neither the OECD Privacy Guidelines nor the APEC Privacy Framework includes any requirement to delete personal information. While New Zealand includes a “limited retention principle” in the Privacy Act 1993, apart from one limited exception the privacy principles cannot be enforced in court. Taking New Zealand privacy law as an example, this paper examines the issue of retention of customer data, explains why this is a serious problem and argues that although it could be addressed by appropriate amendments to domestic laws, domestic privacy legislation may not be sufficient in an online environment. In the same way as other areas of law, such as the intellectual property regime, have turned to global regulatory standards which reflect the international nature of their subject matter, international privacy regulation should be the next stage for the information privacy regime.     

Who controls the Naomi Campbell information flow? A practical analysis of the law of privacy

Legal context. The House of Lords held that the medical privacyof the glamorous supermodel Naomi Campbell was violated by publicationof details of her drug addiction treatment and a paparazzi picture.English law is developing under the influence of Article 8 (theright of privacy) and Article 10 (the right of freedom of expression)of the European Convention of Human Rights. The court explainedhow the action for breach of confidence protects privacy. So,who controls the Naomi Campbell information flow? Key points. Primarily, the courts control the flow of privateinformation. They do so through the cause of action of breachof confidence and remedies. In deciding liability, the courtsshould ask whether the benefit of publication is proportionateto the harm done by the invasion of privacy. To answer the question,they must balance the public interest in the right of privacyagainst the public interest in the right of freedom of expression.They may settle on a Reynolds type test by considering a numberof non-exhaustive factors. The article examines seven suggestedfactors and the remedies which can be deployed by the courts.Judgments from the English courts and the European Court ofHuman Rights are considered, including Campbell v MGN (HL),Douglas v Hello! (CA), McKennitt v Ash (HC), Peck v UK (ECtHR),Édition Plon v France (ECtHR), and Von Hannover v Germany(ECtHR). Practical significance. There are an increasing number of privacyclaims against the media. The article includes a checklist ofseven factors to help determine where the balance lies betweenprivacy and freedom of expression.     

Narratives about privacy and forgetting in English law

This paper examines narratives about the right of privacy in the UK. It argues that until relatively recently the dominant narrative was one that associated privacy with celebrity claimants and media defendants. Other narratives, such as those concerned with digital privacy and data protection, did not feature as prominently. But changing technological and social contexts mean that these narratives are now understood to be of immense importance too. This paper explores these narratives against the backdrop of the European Commission's proposals for a ‘right to be forgotten’ (now relabelled a ‘right to erasure’), the subject-matter of this special issue, as well as the 2014 Google Spain judgment. The paper emphasises the importance of forgetting as an aspect of the right to privacy and argues that while the UK legislator and courts have been slow to give effect to erasure remedies, they must now start exploring the bounds of legal possibility in order to meet the challenges of the digital age.     

论反垄断法语境下的市场界定

对市场的界定是进行并购反垄断审查的重要前提.需求替代性和供给替代性是界定相关市场的理论基础.在此基础上,产品功能界定法和假定的垄断者测试是界定相关市场的具体方法.由于假定的垄断者测试有大量的经济数据作支撑,因此应当作为界定相关市场的主要方法.     

对中国特色社会主义法律体系的定义

我们要从科技意识形态出发,去构建中国特色社会主义法律体系。它不应当仅仅是主观任意的“部门法体系”而已。它是既有内在逻辑关系又有相对独立的各个部分间构成的系统,即我国的立法体制、现行的规范性法律文件体系和部门法体系的总称。这个法律体系应该既具有世界范围的法律体系的一般性,又具有突出的中国特色:一元性、中国特色社会主义理论的指导性和重在控权性。它生成于后现代,必须适应多元社会和全球经济一体化及科技时代的需要。它是中国法制传统与后现代法文化相融合的集中表现。     

法学教育、司法考试与法律职业新论

实行统一的国家司法考试,是我国司法体制改革的一项创新举措,作为一项新的资格考试制度,既有利于提高法律职业的专业化水平,增强了取得法律职业从业资格的严肃性,也极大地推动了法学教育的改革,直接影响着大学法学教育和法律人才的培养。正确处理法学教育与司法考试、法律职业的关系,真正实现这三者之间的良性互动,这是我们法学教育界亟待解决的迫切问题。     

Camera shy – the interaction between the camera and the law of privacy in the UK

Modern man appears to have an insatiable thirst for learning about the private lives of others, and the media is happy to indulge him, constantly informing, updating, educating and entertaining via newspapers, periodicals, radio, television and the Internet. This can pit two competing rights against each other – the right of the individual to personal privacy and the right of the media to freedom of expression. One of the most hotly contested battle grounds in this ongoing war is over the publication of photographs in our celebrity obsessed society. As the battle rages, the nascent law of privacy in the UK is constantly evolving. This paper aims to give an overview of the evolution of the law of privacy in the UK focussing on the way in which these two rights to privacy and freedom of expression compete against each other in the context of photographs.     

Ontario set to introduce new privacy bill

The Ontario government's proposed new legislation is an improvement over previous attempts, but there are still problems.     

Review of employee privacy issues: Implications for law enforcement and other public and private sector agencies

It has been predicted that the number of lawsuits filed for workplace privacy violations will increase over the next few years primarily because of advances in technological innovations and a change in how workplace privacy is defined. This could have implications for law enforcement agencies as well as other public and private sector agencies. This article examines current interpretations of workplace privacy both in the public and private sectors and how courts have traditionally ruled on various types of privacy issues.