信息隐私法的治理转向

J. Winn
{"title":"信息隐私法的治理转向","authors":"J. Winn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3418286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The governance turn in information privacy law is a turn away from a model of bureaucratic administration of individual control rights and toward a model of collaborative governance of shared interests in information. Collaborative information governance has roots in the American pragmatic philosophy of Peirce, James and Dewey and the 1973 HEW Report that rejected unilateral individual control rights, recognizing instead the essential characteristic of mutuality of shared purposes that are mediated through information governance. America’s current information privacy law regime consists of market mechanisms supplemented by sector-specific, risk-based laws designed to foster a culture of compliance. Prior to the GDPR, data protection law compliance in Europe was more honored in the breach than the observance, so the EU’s strengthening of its bureaucratic individual control rights model reveals more about the EU’s democratic deficit than a commitment to compliance. The conventional “Europe good, America bad” wisdom about information privacy law obscures a paradox: if the focus shifts from what “law in the books” says to what “law in action” does, it quickly becomes apparent that American businesses lead the world with their efforts to comply with information privacy law, so “America good, Europe bad” might be more accurate. Creating a federal legislative interface through which regulators and voluntary, consensus standards organizations can collaborate could break the current political stalemate triggered by California’s 2018 EU-style information privacy law. Such a pragmatic approach to information governance can safeguard Americans’ continued access to the benefits of innovation and economic growth as well as providing risk-based protection from harm. America can preserve its leadership of the global information economy by rejecting EU-style information privacy laws and building instead a flexible, dynamic framework of information governance capable of addressing both privacy and disclosure issues simultaneously.","PeriodicalId":361748,"journal":{"name":"Communication & Technology eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Governance Turn in Information Privacy Law\",\"authors\":\"J. Winn\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3418286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The governance turn in information privacy law is a turn away from a model of bureaucratic administration of individual control rights and toward a model of collaborative governance of shared interests in information. Collaborative information governance has roots in the American pragmatic philosophy of Peirce, James and Dewey and the 1973 HEW Report that rejected unilateral individual control rights, recognizing instead the essential characteristic of mutuality of shared purposes that are mediated through information governance. America’s current information privacy law regime consists of market mechanisms supplemented by sector-specific, risk-based laws designed to foster a culture of compliance. Prior to the GDPR, data protection law compliance in Europe was more honored in the breach than the observance, so the EU’s strengthening of its bureaucratic individual control rights model reveals more about the EU’s democratic deficit than a commitment to compliance. The conventional “Europe good, America bad” wisdom about information privacy law obscures a paradox: if the focus shifts from what “law in the books” says to what “law in action” does, it quickly becomes apparent that American businesses lead the world with their efforts to comply with information privacy law, so “America good, Europe bad” might be more accurate. Creating a federal legislative interface through which regulators and voluntary, consensus standards organizations can collaborate could break the current political stalemate triggered by California’s 2018 EU-style information privacy law. Such a pragmatic approach to information governance can safeguard Americans’ continued access to the benefits of innovation and economic growth as well as providing risk-based protection from harm. America can preserve its leadership of the global information economy by rejecting EU-style information privacy laws and building instead a flexible, dynamic framework of information governance capable of addressing both privacy and disclosure issues simultaneously.\",\"PeriodicalId\":361748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication & Technology eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication & Technology eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3418286\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication & Technology eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3418286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

信息隐私法的治理转向是从个人控制权的官僚管理模式转向信息共享利益的协作治理模式。协同信息治理源于皮尔斯、詹姆斯和杜威的美国实用主义哲学,以及1973年的HEW报告,该报告拒绝了单方面的个人控制权,而是承认通过信息治理调解的共同目的的相互性的基本特征。美国目前的信息隐私法律体制由市场机制组成,辅之以针对特定行业、基于风险的法律,旨在培养一种合规文化。在GDPR之前,欧洲的数据保护法合规更多的是违反而不是遵守,因此欧盟加强其官僚个人控制权模式更多地揭示了欧盟的民主赤字,而不是对合规的承诺。关于信息隐私法的传统“欧洲好,美国坏”的智慧掩盖了一个悖论:如果焦点从“书本上的法律”的说法转移到“行动中的法律”的作用,很快就会发现,美国企业在遵守信息隐私法方面的努力领先世界,因此“美国好,欧洲坏”可能更准确。创建一个联邦立法接口,监管机构和自愿达成共识的标准组织可以通过该接口进行合作,从而打破目前由加州2018年欧洲式信息隐私法引发的政治僵局。这种务实的信息治理方法可以保障美国人继续获得创新和经济增长的好处,并提供基于风险的保护,使其免受伤害。美国可以通过拒绝欧盟式的信息隐私法,转而建立一个灵活、动态的信息治理框架,能够同时解决隐私和信息披露问题,从而保持其在全球信息经济中的领导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Governance Turn in Information Privacy Law
The governance turn in information privacy law is a turn away from a model of bureaucratic administration of individual control rights and toward a model of collaborative governance of shared interests in information. Collaborative information governance has roots in the American pragmatic philosophy of Peirce, James and Dewey and the 1973 HEW Report that rejected unilateral individual control rights, recognizing instead the essential characteristic of mutuality of shared purposes that are mediated through information governance. America’s current information privacy law regime consists of market mechanisms supplemented by sector-specific, risk-based laws designed to foster a culture of compliance. Prior to the GDPR, data protection law compliance in Europe was more honored in the breach than the observance, so the EU’s strengthening of its bureaucratic individual control rights model reveals more about the EU’s democratic deficit than a commitment to compliance. The conventional “Europe good, America bad” wisdom about information privacy law obscures a paradox: if the focus shifts from what “law in the books” says to what “law in action” does, it quickly becomes apparent that American businesses lead the world with their efforts to comply with information privacy law, so “America good, Europe bad” might be more accurate. Creating a federal legislative interface through which regulators and voluntary, consensus standards organizations can collaborate could break the current political stalemate triggered by California’s 2018 EU-style information privacy law. Such a pragmatic approach to information governance can safeguard Americans’ continued access to the benefits of innovation and economic growth as well as providing risk-based protection from harm. America can preserve its leadership of the global information economy by rejecting EU-style information privacy laws and building instead a flexible, dynamic framework of information governance capable of addressing both privacy and disclosure issues simultaneously.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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