The Ethics Of The European Union Data Protection Legislation

With the rise of the internet, some people argue that privacy no longer exists. From the 2013 revelations of government surveillance of citizens’ communications to companies that monitor their employees’ internet usage, this argument seems to be increasingly true. Yet, Harvard Law professor Charles Fried states that privacy, “is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust” (Fried 477). However, Fried is not arguing that in a world where privacy, in its most simple terms, is becoming scarce that these foundations of human interactions are also disappearing. Instead, Fried expands on the traditional definition of privacy while contesting that privacy, although typically viewed

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

Jim Harper, the Webmaster of WashingtonWatch, feels, “People should get smart and learn how to control personal information.” However, at this time, the only way to thoroughly control your personal information is to avoid the internet altogether. Once a web purchase is completed or a post is liked, that data moves beyond the reach of that individual. An identity is created, but the one it identifies has no authority in the matter. The data brokers have carte blanche to handle or pass along information as they please. Truth and privacy become casualties when the only concern is how to make a profit, and there's always a profit to be made. As Alexis Madrigal noted, “Every move you make on the internet is worth some tiny amount to someone.” Individuals should have control over their internet identity after their hands leave the keyboard. The damage done, whether purposeful or unintended, is too great of a risk to let continue. In the meantime, Jim Harper's limited solution should not be ignored. Each individual must be attentive to what data they make available. For now, it is the only power we

As this article concludes you may ask the question: what’s the solution to this seemingly everlasting issue? And the solution’’s a bit dissapointing, dissapointing because in retrospect, there is no solution. As long as there are selfish, money crazed, organizations out there, we’ll never have the true privacy our rights give

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

The sharing of information may well be the most advanced activity of the twenty-first century occurring across ages and backgrounds with relative ease. Nevertheless, the use of information that is aired through the internet raises several genuine concerns regarding nature, intent, source, and destination as well as the consequences of the content. This is particularly true when the information has to do with people 's identities and other activities that may touch on critical aspects of national security and unauthorized business. As such, there is a mix of reactions among individuals regarding the extent of privacy they would like regarding information that they share or retrieve on the internet. While some may have genuine concerns such as protecting their identity, others are on malicious tracks to cover their person and conduct unwarranted business on the web. The mix of concerns led to the rise of the Dark Web on darknets. A darknet is an overlay network that utilizes the public Internet but requires authorization or special software to access mainly to protect the user’s identity and location from network surveillance and traffic analysis (Sui, Caverlee & Rudesill 2003). Such trends on the internet raise the question; is the Dark Web an important and necessary tool to offset pervasive online surveillance in contemporary society or is the moral panic surrounding the Dark Web in global news media justified? The aim of this research is to answer the raised question

Daniel Solove, a professor who specializes in internet privacy law, wrote this book to give his personal take on how the internet was transforming the way people connect through social mediums and how that could change in the future. An important thing to note about this book is that it was published in 2007, so some of the social and technological aspects of the book are slightly dated. Regardless of this though, this book provides an inquisitive perspective on the dynamic nature of the internet as a vessel of our society’s changing norms on privacy in the social sphere. Many of our learning points in class relate to topics discussed in this book and help to strengthen the context and significance of the underlying message.

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.

“See you in court” has been the mantra often cried when a person feels their privacy has been violated, or their free speech infringed. When people take a legal cause of action against a party, they feel wronged them and sue them in court for damages, this is known as a tort (p. 110). Current laws seem to favor free speech above privacy rights. These complex legal issues are often viewed through a libertarian or authoritarian lens. When the internet came along it compounded the difficulty of these matters. In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in response to growing issues sprouting from the new medium, the internet. Privacy expert and law professor, Daniel J. Solove addresses these complex legal issues in chapters

Two types of laws are adopted by various countries to protect the sensitive information of individuals on the web. The first kind, comprehensive laws, are laws “that govern the collection, use and dissemination of personal information by both the public and private sectors”6. These general laws do not deal with individual areas like health care or educational systems. Instead, they establish standards for use of private information for all entities. Comprehensive laws are usually adopted for one of three reasons: to remedy past injustices, to promote electronic commerce or to ensure that laws are consistent with Pan-European laws7. In addition, comprehensive laws often require the establishment of an independent commissioner to oversee the enforcement of the law. Unfortunately, problems arise because either a lack of resources hinders

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

Today, individuals are sacrificing privacy in order to feel safe. These sacrifices have made a significant impact on the current meaning of privacy, but may have greater consequences in the future. According to Debbie Kasper in her journal, “The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy,” privacy is a struggling dilemma in America. Kasper asks, “If it is gone, when did it disappear, and why?”(Kasper 69). Our past generation has experienced the baby boom, and the world today is witnessing a technological boom. Technology is growing at an exponential rate, thus making information easier to access and share than ever before. The rapid diminishing of privacy is leaving Americans desperate for change.

With the advent of mobile phones, iPad and other smart technology, accessing information across the web has become very easy. You can sit at home and pay your phone bills, or talk to someone from across the world. Along with these benefits, it has also become easier to get access to information that would otherwise be restricted. In recent years, debates have taken place regarding the concern of the privacy of information that is uploaded on the internet, or that is taken from it. This research paper aims at comparing the controversies that surround the concept of privacy in the digital age.

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was designed to harmonize the data privacy laws across Europe. This is mainly done to protect and empower the EU citizens data privacy and to reshape the way organizations approach data privacy. Let’s understand the requirements of Europe’s GDPR privacy and how it affects US companies.

Privacy concerns on the web have become an undesirable consequence that people face with cyber technology. The ability of computers to gather and store unlimited amount of information from the internet raises privacy issues concerning an individual’s informational privacy. A person’s right to informational privacy is the ability to control the flow of their personal information, including the transfer and exchange of that information. An invasion of informational privacy denies people the right to control who accesses their personal information. Many internet users are unaware that they are more likely to compromise their privacy when using the internet services such as search engines and social networking sites. The internet provides access to an incredible amount of information from all over the world. Some internet users use the internet exclusively as a source of information while other internet users use the internet to create and disseminate information for others to use. However, the vast amount of information floating on the internet would not