The ecosystem concept: a holistic approach to privacy protection

Q1 Social Sciences
Lauren E. Elrick
{"title":"The ecosystem concept: a holistic approach to privacy protection","authors":"Lauren E. Elrick","doi":"10.1080/13600869.2020.1784564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Proportionality remains a vague concept, in part due to the inherent difficulty of balancing two fundamentally important, but potentially conflicting values, particularly when no recognised method exists to definitively determine where the balance should lie. In the current global climate, privacy has increasingly found itself balanced against the necessity of a wide range of intrusive technological measures judged essential to the state’s fight against terrorism. The range of measures involved can make assessing proportionality complicated, as relying on the proportionality test which isolates and examines a particular legal measure independently, might not adequately identify the total risk presented to an individual’s privacy. In this article, it is proposed that one way of addressing this issue is through turning to the biological concept of the ecosystem for guidance. This concept recognises the existence of a closely interconnected system of actors, engaged in the exchange of information and resources. In particular, it places great importance on the interconnections between the various actors, and the effects one can have on another. This article therefore considers whether this approach can be utilised in order to conduct a more holistic proportionality assessment, and whether it provides a viable method of analysis within law.","PeriodicalId":53660,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2020.1784564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Proportionality remains a vague concept, in part due to the inherent difficulty of balancing two fundamentally important, but potentially conflicting values, particularly when no recognised method exists to definitively determine where the balance should lie. In the current global climate, privacy has increasingly found itself balanced against the necessity of a wide range of intrusive technological measures judged essential to the state’s fight against terrorism. The range of measures involved can make assessing proportionality complicated, as relying on the proportionality test which isolates and examines a particular legal measure independently, might not adequately identify the total risk presented to an individual’s privacy. In this article, it is proposed that one way of addressing this issue is through turning to the biological concept of the ecosystem for guidance. This concept recognises the existence of a closely interconnected system of actors, engaged in the exchange of information and resources. In particular, it places great importance on the interconnections between the various actors, and the effects one can have on another. This article therefore considers whether this approach can be utilised in order to conduct a more holistic proportionality assessment, and whether it provides a viable method of analysis within law.
生态系统概念:隐私保护的整体方法
比例性仍然是一个模糊的概念,部分原因是平衡两个根本重要但潜在冲突的价值的固有困难,特别是当没有公认的方法来明确确定平衡应该在哪里时。在当前的全球气候下,隐私越来越发现自己与广泛的侵入性技术措施的必要性相平衡,这些措施被认为对国家打击恐怖主义至关重要。所涉措施的范围可能使相称性的评估变得复杂,因为依赖分离和独立审查特定法律措施的相称性检验可能无法充分确定对个人隐私构成的全部风险。在本文中,提出了解决这一问题的一种方法是通过转向生态系统的生物学概念为指导。这一概念承认存在一个密切相互联系的行动者系统,参与信息和资源的交流。特别是,它非常重视各种行动者之间的相互联系,以及一个行动者对另一个行动者的影响。因此,本文考虑是否可以利用这种方法进行更全面的比例性评估,以及它是否在法律范围内提供了一种可行的分析方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信