Deregulation,property rights,and legal system

During regulation the regulator carries out an intermediary role between shareholders and managers, consequently affecting property rights and the agency relation between the two. Deregulation implies that this intermediary role ceases to exist. This article analyses how government deregulation changes property rights, differentiating between firms of network and non-network structures. Changes in property rights affect the agency relation between shareholders and managers, increasing information asymmetry and agency costs. I argue that the way to reduce agency costs depend to a great extent on the country’s legal system classified as of common or civil law tradition.

Student privacy rights involving strip searches

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protection of all citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has affirmed that the basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against unreasonable intrusive searches by governmental officials. Since students possess constitutional rights and public school officials are considered governmental officials for Fourth Amendment purposes, privacy protection is afforded students in public schools within reasonable limits. A reasonable search is one that clearly does not violate the constitutional rights of students. What is reasonable, however, depends on the context within which a search occurs. Strip searches involving students in public schools are the most intrusive form of all searches. Extreme caution should be exercised by school officials regarding these types of searches.     

Blood rights: the body and information privacy

Genetic and other medical technology makes blood, human tissue and other bodily samples an immediate and accessible source of comprehensive personal and health information about individuals. Yet, unlike medical records, bodily samples are not subject to effective privacy protection or other regulation to ensure that individuals have rights to control the collection, use and transfer of such samples. This article examines the existing coverage of privacy legislation, arguments in favour of baseline protection for bodily samples as sources of information and possible approaches to new regulation protecting individual privacy rights in bodily samples.     

Personhood,property rights,and the permissibility of abortion

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the tactic of granting a fetus the legal status of a person will not, contrary to the expectations of opponents of abortion, provide grounds for a general prohibition on abortions. I begin by examining two arguments, one moral (J. J. Thomson's ‘A Defense of Abortion’) and the other legal (D. Regan's ‘Rewriting Roe v. Wade’), which grant the assumption that a fetus is a person and yet argue to the conclusion that abortion is permissible. However, both Thomson and Regan rely on the so-called bad samaritan principle. This principle states that a person has a right to refuse to give aid. Their reliance on this principle creates problems, both in the moral and the legal contexts, since the bad samaritan principle is intended to apply to passive refusals to aid; abortion, however, does not look like any such passive denial of aid, and so it does not seem like the sort of action covered by the bad samaritan principle. In defense of the positions outlined by Thomson and Regan, I argue that the apparent asymmetry between abortion and the usual type of case covered by the bad samaritan principle is only apparent and not a genuine problem for their analyses. I conclude with a defense of the morality of the bad samaritan principle.     

隐私权:刑事程序基本权

隐私权是宪法权利,亦是刑事程序基本权.隐私权作为刑事程序调整的重要范围,保护着个人对刑法执行至关重要的有罪或者无罪信息的私有,以及对不让政府插手的个人信息的享有.加强刑事领域的隐私权保护,意味着要在政府的规范需要和个人隐私权益上达成大量开放式的司法平衡,对政府操纵背景条件的能力进行有限限制.漠视隐私权的刑事程序比我们想象的更具有事实性的恶果,其对事实结果的影响可能导致一些不良趋势.为此,应关注作为宪法权利的隐私权在刑事诉讼中的属性、价值及作用,加大对我国刑事程序中隐私权的保护.     

Intellectual property strategies for US security and privacy

Legal context. Some state legislatures are considering billswhich would require those applying for a driver’s licenceto provide one or more biometric identifiers. The US federalgovernment is tending towards eavesdropping on conversationsand investing in data mining efforts while on the other handanti "big-brother" technologies are also emerging to counterthis trend and protect privacy. The demand for technology toprotect privacy will no doubt increase as the demand for defenceand security spending increases. We also live in a world wherebioterrorist acts are a constant threat and therefore demandfor biological detection devices and nanotechnology is growingdaily. Key points. Current technology advances in biometrics, surveillance,biological detection and nanotechnology can be used both toprotect and to jeopardize the security and privacy of individuals.As such, the importance of intellectual property in these areascannot be underestimated. Practical significance. Companies are advised to ‘go onthe offensive’. All companies should aggressively protecttheir core technology in numerous facets such as patent protection,copyright, trade marks and trade secrets. In the high tech arenathis is especially important because the demand for securityand privacy necessitates the development of advanced applicationsand in turn the quality of protectable IP for the companiesthat develop the technology increases. Additionally, companiesshould also pursue an offensive strategy that includes analyzingemerging standards and competitor focus so that they can acquirea competitive advantage or secure cross-licensing of another’stechnology.     

Disentangling privacy from property: toward a deeper understanding of genetic privacy

With the mapping of the human genome, genetic privacy has become a concern to many. People care about genetic privacy because genes play an important role in shaping us--our genetic information is about us, and it is deeply connected to our sense of ourselves. In addition, unwanted disclosure of our genetic information, like a great deal of other personal information, makes us vulnerable to unwanted exposure, stigmatization, and discrimination. One recent approach to protecting genetic privacy is to create property rights in genetic information. This Article argues against that approach. Privacy and property are fundamentally different concepts. At heart, the term "property" connotes control within the marketplace and over something that is disaggregated or alienable from the self. "Privacy," in contrast, connotes control over access to the self as well as things close to, intimately connected to, and about the self. Given these different meanings, a regime of property rights in genetic information would impoverish our understanding of that information, ourselves, and the relationships we hope will be built around and through its disclosure. This Article explores our interests in genetic information in order to deepen our understanding of the ongoing discourse about the distinction between property and privacy. It develops a conception of genetic privacy with a strong relational component. We ordinarily share genetic information in the context of relationships in which disclosure is important to the relationship--family, intimate, doctor-patient, researcher-participant, employer-employee, and insurer-insured relationships. Such disclosure makes us vulnerable to and dependent on the person to whom we disclose it. As a result, trust is essential to the integrity of these relationships and our sharing of genetic information. Genetic privacy can protect our vulnerability in these relationships and enhance the trust we hope to have in them. Property, in contrast, by connoting commodification, disaggregation, and arms-length dealings, can negatively affect the self and harm these relationships. This Article concludes that a deeper understanding of genetic privacy calls for remedies for privacy violations that address dignitary harm and breach of trust, as opposed to market harms, as the property model suggests.     

论临床教学实践与患者隐私权保护

医学教育临床教学实践要求对患者隐私权进行保护,临床教学实践必须获得患者的知情同意,并符合一定的构成要件。