滥用私人信息索赔的赔偿责任标准

Q2 Social Sciences
John T. Hartshorne
{"title":"滥用私人信息索赔的赔偿责任标准","authors":"John T. Hartshorne","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2021.2020413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n This article attempts to identify a standard of liability for use in claims for misuse of private information (MPI). It highlights current uncertainty over this issue following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google LLC. It considers whether the comments of Lord Leggatt in Lloyd are compatible with those made in earlier MPI decisions and argues that the standard applicable remains an open question. In formulating a proposed standard, the article considers issues arising under the Human Rights Act 1998 and is informed by the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its review of Australian privacy law. It is suggested that the appropriate standard for the MPI tort ought to be one of ‘quasi-strict’ liability, meaning that liability could, in certain cases, be strict. Whether a defendant would be found to be strictly liable should be determined through the reasonable expectation of privacy test.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The standard of liability in claims for misuse of private information\",\"authors\":\"John T. Hartshorne\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17577632.2021.2020413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n This article attempts to identify a standard of liability for use in claims for misuse of private information (MPI). It highlights current uncertainty over this issue following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google LLC. It considers whether the comments of Lord Leggatt in Lloyd are compatible with those made in earlier MPI decisions and argues that the standard applicable remains an open question. In formulating a proposed standard, the article considers issues arising under the Human Rights Act 1998 and is informed by the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its review of Australian privacy law. It is suggested that the appropriate standard for the MPI tort ought to be one of ‘quasi-strict’ liability, meaning that liability could, in certain cases, be strict. Whether a defendant would be found to be strictly liable should be determined through the reasonable expectation of privacy test.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.2020413\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.2020413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文试图确定滥用私人信息索赔中使用的责任标准。它强调了最高法院在Lloyd诉Google LLC一案中作出裁决后,目前这一问题的不确定性。它考虑了Leggatt勋爵在Lloyds一案中的评论是否与MPI早期裁决中的评论一致,并认为适用的标准仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。在制定拟议标准时,本条考虑了1998年《人权法》下出现的问题,并参考了澳大利亚法律改革委员会在审查澳大利亚隐私法时提出的建议。建议MPI侵权行为的适当标准应该是“准严格”责任,这意味着在某些情况下,责任可能是严格的。应通过对隐私测试的合理预期来确定被告是否应承担严格责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The standard of liability in claims for misuse of private information
ABSTRACT This article attempts to identify a standard of liability for use in claims for misuse of private information (MPI). It highlights current uncertainty over this issue following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google LLC. It considers whether the comments of Lord Leggatt in Lloyd are compatible with those made in earlier MPI decisions and argues that the standard applicable remains an open question. In formulating a proposed standard, the article considers issues arising under the Human Rights Act 1998 and is informed by the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its review of Australian privacy law. It is suggested that the appropriate standard for the MPI tort ought to be one of ‘quasi-strict’ liability, meaning that liability could, in certain cases, be strict. Whether a defendant would be found to be strictly liable should be determined through the reasonable expectation of privacy test.
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
Journal of Media Law
Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?
×
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