在数码时代保护私人资料:

Fiona Brimblecombe, H. Fenwick
{"title":"在数码时代保护私人资料:","authors":"Fiona Brimblecombe, H. Fenwick","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v73iad1.937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Globally, enhanced data protection schemes are being introduced in the face of threats to privacy in the digital era. In England and Wales, protection from one such threat – from unconsented-to disclosures of private information online – is covered by both the established tort of misuse of private information and a recently enhanced data protection scheme, arising under the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR), providing, in particular, the right to erasure. The previous scheme ran alongside the tort, in an uneasy relationship which, until recently, saw its marginalisation in the privacy context under consideration, with the result that the data protection jurisprudence in this context is impoverished, while the tort jurisprudence and scholarship has flourished. This article argues that merely noting that the two causes of action are available and may arise in the same claim provides a limited response. With the advent of the United Kingdom GDPR and the rise in the dangers to protection of private information posed by the ‘tech’ companies, it presents a new argument in opposition to the two separate silos into which scholarship in this area has fallen and, more importantly, in favour of the opportunities the two actions provide for addressing the range and variety of privacy claims, especially against online ‘intermediaries’, including from non-celebrities. To that end it probes the differences between the designs of the key elements of the two actions which might render one more apt or able to provide privacy protection, depending on the situation, than the other, especially in the online context. It also considers as a warning potentialities within both that could detract from their efficacy.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protecting private information in the digital era:\",\"authors\":\"Fiona Brimblecombe, H. Fenwick\",\"doi\":\"10.53386/nilq.v73iad1.937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Globally, enhanced data protection schemes are being introduced in the face of threats to privacy in the digital era. In England and Wales, protection from one such threat – from unconsented-to disclosures of private information online – is covered by both the established tort of misuse of private information and a recently enhanced data protection scheme, arising under the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR), providing, in particular, the right to erasure. The previous scheme ran alongside the tort, in an uneasy relationship which, until recently, saw its marginalisation in the privacy context under consideration, with the result that the data protection jurisprudence in this context is impoverished, while the tort jurisprudence and scholarship has flourished. This article argues that merely noting that the two causes of action are available and may arise in the same claim provides a limited response. With the advent of the United Kingdom GDPR and the rise in the dangers to protection of private information posed by the ‘tech’ companies, it presents a new argument in opposition to the two separate silos into which scholarship in this area has fallen and, more importantly, in favour of the opportunities the two actions provide for addressing the range and variety of privacy claims, especially against online ‘intermediaries’, including from non-celebrities. To that end it probes the differences between the designs of the key elements of the two actions which might render one more apt or able to provide privacy protection, depending on the situation, than the other, especially in the online context. It also considers as a warning potentialities within both that could detract from their efficacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v73iad1.937\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v73iad1.937","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

在全球范围内,面对数字时代对隐私的威胁,正在引入增强的数据保护方案。在英格兰和威尔士,从未经许可到在网上披露私人信息,这类威胁的保护范围既包括已确立的滥用私人信息侵权行为,也包括根据《2016年通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)制定的最近加强的数据保护计划,其中特别规定了删除权。之前的方案与侵权行为并行,处于一种不稳定的关系中,直到最近,它在考虑隐私的背景下被边缘化,结果是在这种背景下的数据保护判例很贫乏,而侵权判例和学术却蓬勃发展。这篇文章认为,仅仅注意到这两个诉因是可用的,并且可能出现在同一索赔中,就只能提供有限的回应。随着英国GDPR的出现,以及“科技”公司对保护私人信息构成的危险的增加,它提出了一个新的论点,反对这一领域学术界陷入的两个独立的筒仓,更重要的是,支持这两项行动为解决隐私权索赔的范围和多样性提供的机会,尤其是针对包括非名人在内的网络“中介”。为此,它探讨了两种行动的关键要素设计之间的差异,这两种行动可能会根据情况使一种行动比另一种行动更适合或更能够提供隐私保护,尤其是在网络环境中。它还认为,这两种药物都有可能降低疗效,这是一种警告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Protecting private information in the digital era:
Globally, enhanced data protection schemes are being introduced in the face of threats to privacy in the digital era. In England and Wales, protection from one such threat – from unconsented-to disclosures of private information online – is covered by both the established tort of misuse of private information and a recently enhanced data protection scheme, arising under the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR), providing, in particular, the right to erasure. The previous scheme ran alongside the tort, in an uneasy relationship which, until recently, saw its marginalisation in the privacy context under consideration, with the result that the data protection jurisprudence in this context is impoverished, while the tort jurisprudence and scholarship has flourished. This article argues that merely noting that the two causes of action are available and may arise in the same claim provides a limited response. With the advent of the United Kingdom GDPR and the rise in the dangers to protection of private information posed by the ‘tech’ companies, it presents a new argument in opposition to the two separate silos into which scholarship in this area has fallen and, more importantly, in favour of the opportunities the two actions provide for addressing the range and variety of privacy claims, especially against online ‘intermediaries’, including from non-celebrities. To that end it probes the differences between the designs of the key elements of the two actions which might render one more apt or able to provide privacy protection, depending on the situation, than the other, especially in the online context. It also considers as a warning potentialities within both that could detract from their efficacy.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信