当前数据主体权利侵害救济的不足及补救方法

A. Savelyev
{"title":"当前数据主体权利侵害救济的不足及补救方法","authors":"A. Savelyev","doi":"10.17323/2713-2749.2020.2.24.62","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper focuses on civil law remedies for violations of data subjects’ rights: claims for damages and claims for compensation of moral harm. Based on an analysis of academic literature, as well as of Russian and international case law, it is argued that, although these remedies are endorsed by the GDPR and other laws, they are inadequate and do not con-form to the requirements for an “effective remedy” stipulated by major international legal documents on human rights. The main reasons are: 1) difficulties in proving the fact and the amount of a legally recognized category of damage because the typical consequences of data privacy violations (e.g. the chilling effect caused by dataveillance, negative emotional reactions, etc.) are not considered legally significant by the courts; 2) inability to prove with a substantial degree of certainty a causal link between the violation and the damage incurred because such damage occurs remotely and within complex flows of data. This produces an imbalance in the enforcement of data protection laws so that public law remedies such as administrative fines predominate. This approach is not compatible with the goals of empowering the individual and ensuring control over usage of one’s data because there cannot be effective control without an effective remedy to enforce it. In practice this leads to under enforcement of data protection laws because under-resourced data protection authorities cannot address most of the violations that pertain to data protection. A new type of remedy that would resemble the statutory damages applicable to copyright infringement in some jurisdictions should be introduced. Its punitive and decentralized nature would become an additional incentive for data controllers to invest in compliance with data protection laws. From a long-term perspective, it may facilitate including individuals in management of their personal data, without which it would be impossible to effectively address the risks brought about by massive and ubiquitous data processing and algorithmic decision-making.","PeriodicalId":410740,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues in the Digital Age","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Inadequacy of Current Remedies for Violation of Data Subjects’ Rights and How to Fix it\",\"authors\":\"A. Savelyev\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/2713-2749.2020.2.24.62\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper focuses on civil law remedies for violations of data subjects’ rights: claims for damages and claims for compensation of moral harm. Based on an analysis of academic literature, as well as of Russian and international case law, it is argued that, although these remedies are endorsed by the GDPR and other laws, they are inadequate and do not con-form to the requirements for an “effective remedy” stipulated by major international legal documents on human rights. The main reasons are: 1) difficulties in proving the fact and the amount of a legally recognized category of damage because the typical consequences of data privacy violations (e.g. the chilling effect caused by dataveillance, negative emotional reactions, etc.) are not considered legally significant by the courts; 2) inability to prove with a substantial degree of certainty a causal link between the violation and the damage incurred because such damage occurs remotely and within complex flows of data. This produces an imbalance in the enforcement of data protection laws so that public law remedies such as administrative fines predominate. This approach is not compatible with the goals of empowering the individual and ensuring control over usage of one’s data because there cannot be effective control without an effective remedy to enforce it. In practice this leads to under enforcement of data protection laws because under-resourced data protection authorities cannot address most of the violations that pertain to data protection. A new type of remedy that would resemble the statutory damages applicable to copyright infringement in some jurisdictions should be introduced. Its punitive and decentralized nature would become an additional incentive for data controllers to invest in compliance with data protection laws. From a long-term perspective, it may facilitate including individuals in management of their personal data, without which it would be impossible to effectively address the risks brought about by massive and ubiquitous data processing and algorithmic decision-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":410740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Issues in the Digital Age\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Issues in the Digital Age\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2020.2.24.62\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Issues in the Digital Age","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2020.2.24.62","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文主要探讨了数据主体权利被侵犯的民事救济:损害赔偿请求和精神损害赔偿请求。通过对学术文献以及俄罗斯和国际判例法的分析,本文认为,尽管这些救济得到了GDPR和其他法律的认可,但它们是不充分的,不符合主要国际人权法律文件对“有效救济”的要求。主要原因是:1)难以证明事实和法律认可的损害类别的数量,因为违反数据隐私的典型后果(例如数据监视造成的寒蝉效应、负面情绪反应等)不被法院认为具有法律意义;2)无法以相当程度的确定性证明违规行为与所造成的损害之间的因果关系,因为这种损害发生在远程和复杂的数据流中。这就造成了数据保护法执行方面的不平衡,因此行政罚款等公法补救措施占主导地位。这种方法与授权个人和确保控制个人数据使用的目标不兼容,因为如果没有有效的补救措施来实施,就不可能有有效的控制。在实践中,这导致数据保护法执行不力,因为资源不足的数据保护当局无法处理与数据保护有关的大多数违规行为。应引入一种类似于某些司法管辖区适用于版权侵权的法定损害赔偿的新型补救办法。它的惩罚性和分散性将成为数据控制者投资遵守数据保护法的额外激励。从长远的角度来看,它可能有助于将个人纳入个人数据的管理中,否则就无法有效解决大规模和无处不在的数据处理和算法决策带来的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Inadequacy of Current Remedies for Violation of Data Subjects’ Rights and How to Fix it
The paper focuses on civil law remedies for violations of data subjects’ rights: claims for damages and claims for compensation of moral harm. Based on an analysis of academic literature, as well as of Russian and international case law, it is argued that, although these remedies are endorsed by the GDPR and other laws, they are inadequate and do not con-form to the requirements for an “effective remedy” stipulated by major international legal documents on human rights. The main reasons are: 1) difficulties in proving the fact and the amount of a legally recognized category of damage because the typical consequences of data privacy violations (e.g. the chilling effect caused by dataveillance, negative emotional reactions, etc.) are not considered legally significant by the courts; 2) inability to prove with a substantial degree of certainty a causal link between the violation and the damage incurred because such damage occurs remotely and within complex flows of data. This produces an imbalance in the enforcement of data protection laws so that public law remedies such as administrative fines predominate. This approach is not compatible with the goals of empowering the individual and ensuring control over usage of one’s data because there cannot be effective control without an effective remedy to enforce it. In practice this leads to under enforcement of data protection laws because under-resourced data protection authorities cannot address most of the violations that pertain to data protection. A new type of remedy that would resemble the statutory damages applicable to copyright infringement in some jurisdictions should be introduced. Its punitive and decentralized nature would become an additional incentive for data controllers to invest in compliance with data protection laws. From a long-term perspective, it may facilitate including individuals in management of their personal data, without which it would be impossible to effectively address the risks brought about by massive and ubiquitous data processing and algorithmic decision-making.
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