Information privacy law

src: www.disclaimertemplate.com

Information privacy laws or data protection laws prohibit disclosure or misuse of information about individual individuals. More than 80 independent countries and territories, including virtually every country in Europe and much in Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Africa, have now adopted comprehensive data protection legislation. The EU has a General Data Protection Regulation, effective since May 25, 2018. The United States is notorious for not adopting comprehensive information privacy legislation, but preferring to adopt limited sectoral laws in some areas.

This Act is based on Fair Information Practice first developed in the United States in 1970 by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The basic principles of data protection are:

• For all data collected there must be another purpose.
• Information collected by a person can not be disclosed to another organization or individual unless specifically permitted by law or with the consent of the individual
• Recordings stored on individuals must be accurate and up to date
• There should be a mechanism for individuals to review data about them, to ensure their accuracy. This may include periodic reporting
• The data should be deleted when it is no longer required for the intended purpose
• Submission of personal information to locations where "equivalent" personal data protection is not guaranteed to be prohibited
• Some data is too sensitive to collect, unless there are extreme circumstances (eg, sexual orientation, religion)

Video Information privacy law

Based on the jurisdiction

The Data Act is the first national data protection law in the world and enacted in Sweden on May 11, 1973.

Canada

In Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Document (PIPEDA) entered into force on 1 January 2001, applicable to privately-regulated private agencies. All other organizations were incorporated on 1 January 2004. PIPEDA took Canada to comply with EU data protection laws.

PIPEDA establish rules to regulate the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information in the context of recognizing the right of individual privacy in connection with their personal information. It also sets the rules for organizations to collect, use, and disclose personal information.

PIPEDA applies to:

1. The organization collects, uses, or discloses in the case of commercial use.
2. Organizations and employees of an organization collect, use, or disclose in order to operate a work, business or a federal business.

PIPEDA DOES NOT apply to

1. The government institution in which the Privacy Act applies.
2. Individuals who collect, use, or disclose personal information for personal purposes and use.
3. Organizations that collect, use, or disclose personal information only for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.

As specified in PIPEDA:

"Personal Information" means information about an identifiable individual, but excludes the name, title, or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization.

"Organization" means association, partnership, person, and union.

"Federal employment, business or business" means any work, business or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. Including: jobs, businesses or businesses operated or run for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether land or sea, including vessel operations and vessel transportation anywhere in Canada;

railway, canal, telegraph or other work or occupation linking provinces with other provinces, or beyond provincial boundaries;

a line of ships linking the province to another province, or beyond the provincial boundary;

ferries between other provinces and provinces or between provinces and countries other than Canada;

aerodrome, aircraft, or air transport;

a radio broadcasting station;

the bank;

a work which, while fully within the province, is before or after its implementation as declared by Parliament for the general benefit of Canada or for the benefit of two or more provinces;

a job, business or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the provincial legislature; and

a work, business or business which is federal law, in the sense of section 2 of the Ocean Law, applies under section 20 of the Act and any rule made under paragraph 26 (1) (k) Invite it.

PIPEDA gives individuals the right to:

1. understand why organizations collect, use, or disclose personal information.
2. expects the organization to collect, use, or disclose personal information in a reasonable and appropriate manner.
3. understand who within the organization is responsible for protecting the personal information of individuals.
4. expects the organization to protect personal information in a reasonable and safe manner.
5. expect the personal information held by the organization to be accurate, complete, and up-to-date.
6. have access to their personal information and request correction or have the right to file a complaint against the organization.

PIPEDA requires organizations to:

1. get approval before they collect, use, and disclose any personal information.
2. collect personal information in a reasonable, appropriate, and legal manner.
3. establish a clear, reasonable, and prepared personal information policy to protect personal information.

Europe

The right to data privacy is relatively well organized and enforced actively in Europe. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) gives the right to respect "personal and family life, home and correspondent" of a person, subject to certain restrictions. The European Court of Human Rights has given this article a very broad interpretation in its jurisprudence. According to the Court's lawsuit cases the collection of information by state officials about a person without their consent is always included within the scope of Article 8. Thus, collecting information for the official census, recording fingerprints and photographs in police lists, collecting medical data or personal expenditure details and applying Personal identification systems have been assessed to improve data privacy concerns.

Any state interference with someone's privacy can only be accepted for the Court if three conditions are met:

1. The disruption is in accordance with the law
2. This interruption pursues a legitimate goal
3. Interference is needed in a democratic society

Government is not the only entity that poses a threat to data privacy. Other citizens, and the most important private companies, may also be involved in threatening activities, especially since data processing is automatically widespread. The Convention for the Protection of Individuals on the Automatic Processing of Personal Data was summarized in the Council of Europe in 1981. This Convention obliges the signatories to enact legislation concerning the automated processing of personal data, which has been widely practiced.

As all EU Member States are also signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for Individual Protection in connection with Automatic Private Data Processing, the Commission is concerned that different data protection laws will emerge and hamper free data flows within the EU zone. Therefore, the European Commission decided to propose a law of harmonization data protection in the EU. The resulting Data Protection Guidelines were adopted by the European Parliament and ministers of the national government in 1995 and should be changed into national law by the end of 1998.

Referrals contain a number of key principles that the member countries must comply with. Anyone who processes personal data must adhere to the eight principles of best practice that can be applied. They state that the data should be:

1. Processed fairly and legitimately.
2. Processed for restricted purposes.
3. Quite, relevant, and not excessive.
4. Accurate.
5. Saved no more than necessary.
6. Processed in accordance with the subject rights of the data.
7. Safe.
8. Only transferred to countries with adequate protection.

Personal data includes facts and opinions about individuals. It also includes information about the intent of the data controller against the individual, although in some exceptions the limited circumstances will apply. With processing, the definition is much wider than before. For example, this combines the concept of "obtaining", "holding" and "expressing" {{citation needed | date = November 2009}}.

All EU member states adopt laws based on this directive or adapt existing laws. Each country also has its own supervisory authority to monitor the level of protection.

Therefore, in theory the transfer of personal information from the EU to the US is prohibited when equivalent privacy protection does not exist in the US. American companies that will work with EU data must adhere to the Safe Harbor framework. The core principles of protected data are limited collections, subject approval, accuracy, integrity, security, subject review and deletion rights. As a result, customers of international organizations such as Amazon and eBay in the EU have the ability to review and delete information, while Americans do not. In the United States, an equivalent guiding philosophy is the Fair Information Practice Code (FIP).

The language difference here is important: in the United States the debate is about privacy where in the European Community the debate is on data protection. Moving the debate from privacy to data protection is seen by some philosophers as a mechanism for moving forward in the practical world while requiring no agreement on fundamental questions about the nature of privacy.

French

French adapt existing laws, no. 78-17 6 January 1978 on information technology, files and civil liberties ".

German

In Germany, the federal and state governments enact legislation.

Swiss

While Switzerland is not a member of the European Union (EU) or European Economic Area, it has partially implemented the EU Guide on the protection of personal data in 2006 by acceding to the STE 108 agreement of the Council of Europe and its associated amendments to the Federal Data Protection Act. However, Swiss law imposes fewer restrictions on data processing than Instructions in some respects.

In Switzerland, the right to privacy is guaranteed in article 13 of the Swiss Federal Constitution. The Swiss Federal Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Swiss Federal Data Protection Act (DPO) entered into force on 1 July 1993. Recent amendments of DPA and DPO entered into force on 1 January 2008.

DPA applies to the processing of personal data by private individuals and federal government agencies. Unlike data protection laws in many other countries, DPA protects both personal data relating to individuals and legal entities.

The Swiss Federal Data and Information Protection Commissioner specifically oversees the compliance of federal government agencies with DPA, advises private persons on data protection, conducts investigations and makes recommendations on data protection practices.

Some data files must be registered with the Swiss Federal Data and Information Protection Commissioner before it is created. In the case of transfer of personal data outside Switzerland, special requirements must be met and, depending on the circumstances, Federal Data Protection and Federal Information Commissioners must be informed before the transfer is made.

Most areas of Switzerland have enacted their own data protection laws governing the processing of personal data by local and municipal bodies.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the Data Protection Act 1998 (Information Commissioner) implements the EU Directive on the protection of personal data. This replaces the Data Protection Act 1984. The 2016 Public Data Protection Rule replaces the previous Protection Act.

United States

Data privacy is not regulated or regulated in the U.S. In the United States, access to personal data contained in, for example, a third party credit report can be sought when seeking employment or medical care, or making cars, housing, or other purchases. with credit terms. Although partial rules exist, there is no law covering all that governs the acquisition, storage, or use of personal data in the U.S. In general, in the U.S., anyone who may find it difficult to enter data, is deemed to have the right to store and use it, even if data is collected without permission, except for the levels governed by laws and regulations such as the Federal Communications Act, from the Federal Communications Commission, which governs the use of customer ownership network information (CPNI)). For example, the Health Insurance and Accountability Portability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), and the Fair and Accurate Credit Act Act of 2003 (FACTA) US federal law with conditions that tend to promote the efficiency of information flow.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to grant privacy rights to individuals at Griswold v. Connecticut . However, very few countries recognize the right of individuals to privacy, except California. The unalienable right of privacy is included in the California Constitution article 1, section 1, and the California legislature has enacted several laws aimed at protecting this right. The 2003 Online Privacy Protection Act of California (OPPA) requires operators of commercial websites or online services that collect personal information of citizens of California through the website to post privacy policies on the site prominently and to comply with its policies.

Secure harbor settings were developed by the United States Department of Commerce to provide a means for US companies to demonstrate compliance with the EC directives and thus to simplify the relationship between them and European business.

Recently, lawmakers in several states have proposed legislation to change the way online businesses handle user information. Among those who generated significant attention were several Do Not Track laws and the Right to Know Act (California Bill AB 1291). The California Know Resident Knowledge Act, if enacted, will require any business that stores user information to provide a copy of the information that is stored to the user when requested. The bill faces heavy opposition from trade groups representing companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook, and failed to qualify.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted by the US Congress in 1996. HIPAA is also known as the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA-Public Law 104-191), effective August 21, 1996. Idea the basis of HIPAA is that a person who is the subject of individually identifiable health information must have:

• Establish procedures to exercise the privacy rights of individual health information.
• Use and disclosure of individual health information should be authorized or required.

One difficulty with HIPAA is that there must be a mechanism for authenticating patients who demand access to their data. As a result, medical facilities began to ask for Social Security Numbers from patients, thereby reducing privacy by simplifying the act of linking health records with other records. Problematic issue permission under HIPAA, because medical providers only make care depend on agreeing to privacy standards in practice.

FCRA

The Fair Credit Reporting Act applies the principles of the Fair Information Code of Practice to credit reporting agencies. FCRA allows individuals to opt out of unsolicited credit offerings:

• Equifax (888) 567-8688 Equifax Options, P.O. Box 740123 Atlanta GA 30374-0123.
• Experian (800) 353-0809 or (888) 5OPTOUT P.O. Box 919, Allen, TX 75013
• TransUnion (800) 680-7293 or (888) 5OPTOUT P.O Box 97328, Jackson, MS 39238.

Due to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, everyone can obtain a free annual credit report.

The Fair Credit Reporting Law is effective in preventing the proliferation of so-called personal credit guides. Previously, private credit guides offered detailed, if unreliable, information about easily identifiable individuals. Before the Fair Credit Reporting Act, unproven material may be included, in fact, the gossip is widely included in the credit report. EPIC has a FCRA page. The Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents the consumer reporting industry, also has a Web site with FCRA information. [1]

The Fair Credit Reporting Act gives consumers the ability to view, correct, contest, and restrict the use of credit reports. FCRA also protects the credit agent from allegations of default relinquishment in case of misstatement by the applicant. The credit institution should ask the applicant the purpose of the release of the requested information, but there is no need to make an effort to verify the truth of the questioner's claim. In fact, the court has ruled that, "The law clearly does not provide drugs for the use of illegal or abusive information about consumers" (Henry v Forbes, 1976). It is widely believed that to avoid FCRA, ChoicePoint is made by Equifax when the parent company copies all of its notes to the newly created subsidiary. ChoicePoint is not a credit reporting agency, and thus FCRA does not apply.

The Fair Debt Billing Practices Act also limits the dissemination of information about consumer financial transactions. This prevents their creditors or agents from disclosing the fact that a person has a debt to a third party, even though it allows the creditor and his agent to try to obtain information about the debtor's location. This limits the actions of those seeking debt payments. For example, a debt collection agency is prohibited from harassing or contacting individuals in the workplace. Prevention of Bankruptcy Abuse and the Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (which actually destroyed consumer protection, for example in the case of bankruptcy due to medical expenses) restricted some of these controls to the debtor.

ECPA

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) imposes criminal sanctions for the interception of electronic communications. However, the law has been criticized for its lack of impact due to loopholes.

Computer security, privacy, and criminal law

The following summarizes some of the laws, regulations and references related to the protection of information systems:

• 1970 US Fair Credit Reporting Act
• Applied and Broken Organizational Laws 1970 (US).
• Family Education Rights and Privacy Act 1974 (FERPA)
• US Privacy Act 1974
• 1980 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines
• 1984 US Medical Computer Crime Law
• 1984 US Federal Computer Crime Law (reinforced in 1986 and 1994)
• 1986 US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (revised 1986, 1994, 1996, and 2001)
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act 1986 (ECPA)
• 1987 US Computer Security Act (Revoked by Federal Information Security Management Act 2002)
• A Video Privacy Protection Act of the U.S. in 1988
• 1990 United Kingdom Computer Misuse Act
• 1991 US Federal Judgment Guidelines
• 1992 OECD Guide to Serve as a Total Security Framework
• 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act
• Council Regulation 1995 on Data Protection for European Union (EU)
• 1996 Economic Law and the Protection of Foreigners
• 1996 Portability of Health Insurance and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (requirements added in December 2000)
• 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) AS
• US Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act 1999 (UCITA)
• 2000 Electronic Signature of the US Congress at the Global National Commerce Act ("ESIGN")
• 2001 U.S. Provide the Right Tools Needed to Cut and Avoid Terrorism (PATRIOT) Laws
• 2002 Homeland Security Act (HSA)
• Federal Information Security Management Act 2002 2002

Some US federal agencies have privacy laws that include the collection and use of their personal information. These include the Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, and the National Center for Education Statistics (under the Educational Educational Reform Act). In addition, CIPSEA laws protect the confidentiality of data collected by federal statistics agencies.

Maps Information privacy law

"Safe harbour" privacy framework

Unlike the US approach to privacy protection, which relies on industry-specific laws, regulations, and specific arrangements, the EU relies on comprehensive privacy laws. The European Data Protection Directive, which entered into force in October 1998, included, for example, the requirement to create a government data protection agency, database registration with such institutions, and in some instances consent before the processing of personal data could begin. To bridge these privacy approaches and provide an efficient way for US organizations to comply with the Directive, the US Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission developed a "safe harbor" framework. A safe harbor - approved by the EU in July 2000 - is a way for US companies to comply with European privacy laws.

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

See also

• International Privacy
• Canadian Privacy Commissioner
• Center for Democracy and Technology
• The right to be forgotten
• Do not Track legislation
• Data sovereignty
• Localization of data

src: pbs.twimg.com

References

• Warren S. and Brandeis L., 1890, "Right to privacy," Harvard Law Review, Vol. 4, 193-220.
• Graham Greenleaf, Global Data Privacy Law: 89 Countries, and Accelerate http://ssrn.com/abstract=2000034

Source of the article : Wikipedia