The Concept of Privacy in the International Information Relations and its Development by International Judicial Institutions
Abstract
The aim of the research is to identify the content of the concept of privacy in the sphere of information developed at the universal and regional levels and the directions of its development by international judicial institutions. A complex of general scientific and philosophical methods, including the logical, comparative-legal, formal-legal, systemic-structural, problematic-theoretical methods, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis, generalization and description, comparison were used in the research. As a result of the research, it was identified that a unified concept of privacy has been formed in the sphere of information at the universal and regional levels. This concept was developed in acts of international judicial institutions that limited the privacy of political and public figures and extended the requirement of privacy protection to the relations on the Internet. The findings can be used in the activities of international organizations in execution of their functions of unification and harmonization of the international information law and by national courts in the implementation of international law.
References
[2] Bell, R., and Ray, N. 2006. EU Electronic Communications Law. Richmond: Richmond Law and Tax ltd. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[3] Berčić, B., and Carlisle, G. 2009. Identifying Personal Data Using Relational Database Design Principles. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 17(3), 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/ean007.
[4] Black, S.K. 2002. Telecommunications Law in the Internet Age. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
[5] Campbell, D., and Ban, C. (Eds.). 2005. Legal Issues in the Global Information Society. New York: Oceana Publications Inc.
[6] COE. 1950. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14. Council of Europe. Rome. https://rm.coe.int/1680063765.
[7] COE. 1981. Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. Council of Europe. Strasbourg. https://rm.coe.int/1680078b37.
[8] Directive 2002/58/EC. 2002. Directive on privacy and electronic communications. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 201/37. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0058andfrom=EN.
[9] ECHR. 2002. CASE OF TAYLOR-SABORI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. Strasbourg. http://www.hr-dp.org/files/2013/09/08/CASE_OF_TAYLORSABORI_v._THE_UNITED_KINGDOM_.pdf.
[10] ECHR. 2010. FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 420/07 by Karin KÖPKE against Germany. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101536.
[11] ECHR. 2012. CASE OF VON HANNOVER v. GERMANY. Strasbourg. http://194.242.234.211/documents/10160/2055471/EHCR+-+CASE+OF+VON+HANNOVER+v.+GERMANY+No.+2.pdf.
[12] ECHR. 2014. CASE OF L.H. v. LATVIA. Strasbourg. http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/L.H.-v-Latvia.pdf.
[13] ECHR. 2015a. CASE OF M.N. AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO. Strasbourg. https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2012-028005.pdf.
[14] ECHR. 2015b. Vinci Construction and GTM Genie Civil et Services v. France. Strasbourg. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-10656%22]}.
[15] ECHR. 2017a. CASE OF ANTOVIĆ AND MIRKOVIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. Strasbourg. https://www.droit-technologie.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ANTOVIC-AND-MIRKOVIC.pdf.
[16] ECHR, 2017b. CASE OF BARBULESCU v. ROMANIA. Strasbourg. http://www.marinacastellaneta.it/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CASE-OF-BARBULESCU-v.-ROMANIA.pdf.
[17] ECHR. 2018. CASE OF LÓPEZ RIBALDA AND OTHERS v. SPAIN. Strasbourg. https://www.droit-technologie.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/LOPEZ-RIBALDA.pdf.
[18] Gunasekara, G. 2009. The «Final» Privacy Frontier? Regulating Trans-Border Data Flows. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 17(2): 152–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eam004.
[19] IACHR. 2009a. CASE of TRISTÁN DONOSO v. PANAMÁ. http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_193_ing.pdf.
[20] IACHR. 2009b. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_200_ing.pdf.
[21] IACHR. 2011. CASE OF FONTEVECCHIA AND D’AMICO V. ARGENTINA. http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_238_ing.pdf.
[22] ITU. 2015. Collection of the basic texts adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference. Geneva. http://search.itu.int/history/HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/5.21.61.en.100.pdf.
[23] Lloyd, I.J. 2011. Information Technology Law. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[24] McCullagh, K. 2009. Protecting ‘privacy’ Through control of ‘personal’ data processing: a flawed approach. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 23(1–2): 47-58. https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/38226/1/KMcC_Personal_flawed_IRLCT.pdf.
[25] Nouwt, S., de Vries, B.R., Prins, C. (Eds.). 2005. Reasonable Expectations of Privacy? Eleven Country Reports on Camera Surveillance and Workplace Privacy. The Hague: ITeR.
[26] OECD. 1980. Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm.
[27] Polcak, R. 2009. Aims, methods and achievements in European data protection. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 23(3): 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600860903262248.
[28] Reed, C., and Angel, J. (Eds.) 2007. Computer Law: The Law and Regulation of Information Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[29] Reed, C. 2005. Internet law: text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Ritchie, D. 2009. Is it possible to define ‘privacies’ within the law? Reflections on the ‘securitization’ debate and the interception of communication. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 23(1–2): 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600860902742554.
[31] Rowland, D., and MacDonald, E. 2005. Information Technology Law. Abingdon: Cavendish Publishing ltd.
[32] Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A. 2017. Information Technology Law. London, Routledge.
[33] Shaw, T.J. 2018. Information and Internet Law: Global Practice. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
[34] Smedinghoff, T.J (Ed.). 1996. Online Law: The SPA's Legal Guide to Doing Business on the Internet. Addison-Wesley Professional.
[35] Solove, D.J. 2006. The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. New York: New York University Press.
[36] UNO. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_12.html#at13.
[37] UNO. 1966. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf.
[38] WSIS. 2003. Declaration of Principles. Document WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E. Geneva. http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.