The Concept of Privacy in the International Information Relations and its Development by International Judicial Institutions

  • Valentina Petrovna TALIMONCHIK St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
  • Igor Stanislavovich MARUSIN St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
  • Sergei Vladimirovich BAKHIN St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

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

[1] Bainbridge, D.I. 2008. Introduction to Information Technology Law. Edinburg: Pearson Education Limited.
[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.
Published
2018-12-25
How to Cite
TALIMONCHIK, Valentina Petrovna; MARUSIN, Igor Stanislavovich; BAKHIN, Sergei Vladimirovich. The Concept of Privacy in the International Information Relations and its Development by International Judicial Institutions. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 3(33), p. 1116-1124, dec. 2018. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/2565>. Date accessed: 21 mar. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v9 3(33).40.