Search results

[…] factors of privacy, human-computer interaction, ubiquitous computing, and mobile secu – rity. He has a doctoral degree and Diplom in Computer Science from Ulm Univer – sity, Germany, and a Bachelor in Infor – mation Technology (Multimedia Tech – nology) from Deakin University, Australia. Dr. Schaub is an IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) […]

[…] empirical inquiry — including interviews with, and questionnaires completed by, corporate privacy officers, regulators, and other actors within the privacy field in three European countries, Franc e, Germany and Spain — to identify the ways in which privacy protection is implemented in different jurisdictions, and the combination of social, market, and regulatory forces that […]

[…] Harbor principles are being violated. This is only the latest in a growing group of voices in the E.U. to question whether the Safe Harbor is working.  Germany’s data protection commissioner, for example, blogged that the United States data protection framework is lacking and that Safe Harbor “cannot compensate for these deficits.”   And just […]

[…] of Personal Data within the EC (The Netherlands : Springer, 1990 ). The volume analyzes some of the first data protection laws in Europe – Bundesdatenschutzgesetz ( Germany, 1977), Loi relatif a l’informatique, aux fichiers et aux libe rtes (France, 1978), Data Protection Act (UK, 1984) and Wet Persoonsregistraties (The Netherlands, 1989), all of […]

[…] Unprecedented Scale of Networked Communications  Third, in the past, the reach of speech and information was  limited by geographic, technological, and cultural or language  considerations. Today, by contrast, content and data can flow   across the globe at the click of a button as a result of the dra‐ matic expansion of Internet access and broadband connec‐ tivity. 71 Commentary and personal information that appears on  a blog or social networking site in one corner of the globe is just  as visible everywhere else. Offshore hosting of content also  makes it harder to know where content originates or is stored. 72  While restrictions by government are certainly still possible,  the scale of modern speech and content dissemination greatly  complicates government efforts to control information flows. 73  D. Explosion of the Overall Volume of Information   Fourth, the volume of media and communications activity  taking place today also complicates regulatory efforts. There  exists vastly more content and communication for regulators to  police today than in the past. “Since 1995 the sheer volume of  information—personally identifiable and otherwise—that has  become digitized and can be cheaply transported around the  world has grown by orders of magnitude,” notes Larry Dow‐ 70. See, e.g., David Pike, Censorship in Soviet‐Occupied  Germany, in T HE  ESTABLISHMENT OF  COMMUNIST  REGIMES IN  EASTERN  EUROPE , 1944–1949,  at 217   (Norman Naimark & Leonid Gibianskii eds., 1997).  71. C RAIG  & LUDLOFF , supra note 6, at 20 (“Data, in and of itself, has no country,  respects no law, and travels freely across borders.”).  72. H AL  ABELSON ET AL ., BLOWN TO  BITS : YOUR  LIFE , LIBERTY , AND  HAPPINESS  AFTER THE  […]

[…] search firm Forrester forecasts that the global market for cloud computing “will leap from $40.7 billion [in 2011] to more than $241 billion in 2020.” 12 In Germany, the largest economy in the European Union, investments in and the services of the 2010 cloud market were worth €1.14 billion. 13 This market is estimated […]

[…] Privacy Cop to the World, W ALL  ST. J., Oct. 10, 2003, at A1.    2013] THE EU-U.S. PRIVACY COLLISION 1969  A. The Early History of EU Data Protection Law The history of European data protection law does not start with  the Directive.  Rather, it begins within an individual country, and with  a state-level law: the Hessian Parliament enacted the world’s first  comprehensive information privacy statute in Wiesbaden,  Germany, on  September 30, 1970. 17  This law was followed by those of other Ger- man states, 18 and in 1977 by a federal German law. 19  Other EU na- tions enacted data protection statutes as well: among the first wave of  legislation were statutes in Sweden (1973), Austria (1978), Denmark  (1978), France (1978), and Norway (1978). 20  By the end of this period, there was a consensus that information  privacy statutes were to be constructed around Fair Information Prac- tices (FIPs).  This approach, shared in the United States and Western  Europe alike, defines core obligations for organizations, whether in the  public or private sector, that process personal information. 21  The U.S.  government and American privacy experts played an important part in  this early global privacy debate.  For example, a white paper from an  advisory committee to the Secretary for Health, Education, and Wel- fare in the United States contained an influential early formulation of  FIPs. 22  There were also important supranational privacy agreements that  preceded the EU Data Protection Directive of 1995.  The two most  important are the Privacy Guidelines of the Organisation for Econom- ic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Convention on  Privacy of the Council of Europe. […]

[…] has taught us that injustice and tyranny are preceded by a rising tide of intrusion upon the privacy and dignity of ordinary citizens. Certainly the citizens of Germany have not “forgotten what happens when secret police or intelligence agencies disregard privacy. It is an integral part of [their] history and gives young and old […]

[…] suffer the direct opposite. Alexander Bleier is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of Retailing and Customer Management, University of Cologne, Albertus -Magnus -Platz 1, 50931 Cologne, Germany. Phone: +49 -(0)221 -470 6250; Fax +49 -(0)221 -470 5191; email: [email protected] -koeln.de. Maik Eisenbeiss is the OBI Assistant Professor for Marketing and Retailing at the […]

[…] uses qualitative empirical inquiry —including interviews with, and questionnaires completed by, corporate privacy officers, regulators, and other actors within the privacy field in three European countries, France, Germany and Spain, to identify the ways in which privacy protection is implemented in different jurisdictions, and the com bination of social, market, and regulatory forces that […]