Suchergebnisse

Introduction to social media concepts -- CMC, diffusion and social theories -- Social media in journalism -- Social media in public relations -- Social media in advertising and marketing -- Social media metrics and analytics -- New and mobile media technologies, innovation and investment -- Big data and privacy -- Law and regulation -- Social media ethics -- Best practices in social media -- Future of social media and information literacy.

Il regolamento UE 2016/679, generalmente citato come GDPR o RGPD (rispettivamente da General Data Protection Regulation e Regolamento Generale per la Protezione dei Dati), disciplina in tutta l'Unione Europa il trattamento dei dati di persone fisiche. In Italia inoltre è ancora in vigore, anche se fortemente rimaneggiato, il precedente Decreto Legislativo 196/2003 generalmente noto come Codice della privacy

This volume maps the areas of ethical concern in the debate regarding the governance of genetic information, and suggests alternative ethical frameworks and models of regulation in order to inform its restructuring. Genetic governance is at the heart of medical and scientific developments, and is connected to global exploitation, issues of commodification, commercialisation and ownership, the concepts of property and intellectual property and concerns about individual and communal identity. Thus the decisions that are made in the next few years about appropriate models of genetic governance will have knock-on effects for other areas of governance. In short the final answer to 'Who Decides?' in the context of genetic governance will fundamentally shape the ethical constructs of individuals and their networks and relationships in the public sphere

Design is a key player in the future of data privacy and data protection. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) established by the European Union aims to rebalance the information asymmetry between the organizations that process personal data and the individuals to which that data refers. Machine-readable, standardized icons that present a "meaningful overview of the intended processing" are suggested by the law as a tool to enhance the transparency of information addressed to data subjects. However, no specific guidelines have been provided, and studies on privacy iconography are very few. This article describes research conducted on the creation and evaluation of icons representing data protection concepts. First, we introduce the methodology used to design the Data Protection Icon Set (DaPIS): participatory design methods combined with legal ontologies and machine-readable representations. Second, we discuss some of the challenges that have been faced in the development and evaluation of DaPIS and similar icon sets. Third, we provide some tentative responses and indicate a way forward for evaluation of the effectiveness of privacy icons and their widespread adoption.

As technology continues to innovate at lightning speeds and technology becomes more central to everyday life, personal data must be protected. In 2017, the passage of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union set an important precedent in the world of data protection law. Building upon the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), the GDPR has taken the fundamental right to privacy and extended it to the transmission of personal data. The United States of America, however, offers no such protection at the federal level - the right to privacy within the U.S. is not absolute. This article will comparatively present the pattern of case law and legislation in the EU that led to the General Data Protection Regulation, and then the pattern of case law and legislation leading to data protection law(s) in the United States of America. The contrasting degrees of protection within the two regimes is a large discrepancy; the collection and transmission of personal data is protected by law in the EU and the US differs to such a degree that companies like Facebook, have had to drastically alter their services in Europe to comply with the stringent requirements of the GDPR. The paper continues on to addresses how personal data protection is being addressed by lawmakers vis-à-vis competition law and anti-trust regulation in the EU. While it may be difficult for the United States to develop a sweeping, federal-level piece of legislation like the GDPR, the increasing success of laws protecting personal data vis-à-vis competition law points to an area in which the U.S. and the E.U. can more easily harmonize their laws and protections. Finally, the paper offers a comment on the future of the transatlantic relationship and the role data protection law could play in strengthening that relationship.

Most people surf the Internet with little concern for who makes decisions regarding Internet administrative matters and who has the authority to make those decisions. Initially, as the Internet evolved out of a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1969, many "founder groups," such as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, formed under the auspices of the federal government to administer the network's development. While these groups continue to function today as the main decision-making bodies over all aspects of the Internet's governance, several newer organizations, such as the Internet Society, have taken an important role in the process. Although these Internet governing bodies are interrelated, the association between them is complex and murky. As the federal government plans to withdraw from active participation in the Internet's administration, and the Federal Communications Commission refuses to regulate the network, one of the founder groups has called for a "legal umbrella" under which all of the governing bodies can operate. Without such an umbrella, the Internet organizations will face challenges to their claimed authority over the Internet, and the looming legal void may lead the Internet into a black hole of litigation, particularly with regard to domain name conflicts. Such disputes have already arisen, including international problems arising from registrations in the popular .com international top-level domain ("iTLD") and competing claims of trademark rights in domain names. In 1997, an ad hoc committee formed by several of the Internet organizations and other entities proposed a comprehensive solution to such international domain name conflicts. While this is a positive development that reflects sensitivity to the international implications of decisions affecting Internet governance, acceptance of the proposal is unlikely where the system threatens fundamental rights. In addition, the proposal does not solve the core issue of legal authority, and the prospect of conflicting regulation worldwide as well as within the United States exists even if the proposal is adopted by the global Internet community. Legislative action within the United States may avoid this piecemeal and inconsistent regulation and place the Internet's administration on a healthy legal foundation for the next stage of its development. Such legislation would clarify the jurisdiction and authority of those Internet groups deemed necessary for Internet administration. The legislation would also designate a single federal agency as a liaison between those groups, having the power to preempt state and local regulation of Internet administration. More ambitiously, on the global scale, the Internet needs an international agreement on the structure of Internet governance. Though some may resist any legislation or international agreements, the history of the development of radio broadcasting after World War I demonstrates that the Internet requires such organization to sort out conflicting claims, impart some order and promote the future development of the Internet.

Most people surf the Internet with little concern for who makes decisions regarding Internet administrative matters and who has the authority to make those decisions. Initially, as the Internet evolved out of a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1969, many "founder groups," such as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, formed under the auspices of the federal government to administer the network's development. While these groups continue to function today as the main decision-making bodies over all aspects of the Internet's governance, several newer organizations, such as the Internet Society, have taken an important role in the process. Although these Internet governing bodies are interrelated, the association between them is complex and murky. As the federal government plans to withdraw from active participation in the Internet's administration, and the Federal Communications Commission refuses to regulate the network, one of the founder groups has called for a "legal umbrella" under which all of the governing bodies can operate. Without such an umbrella, the Internet organizations will face challenges to their claimed authority over the Internet, and the looming legal void may lead the Internet into a black hole of litigation, particularly with regard to domain name conflicts. Such disputes have already arisen, including international problems arising from registrations in the popular .com international top-level domain ("iTLD") and competing claims of trademark rights in domain names. In 1997, an ad hoc committee formed by several of the Internet organizations and other entities proposed a comprehensive solution to such international domain name conflicts. While this is a positive development that reflects sensitivity to the international implications of decisions affecting Internet governance, acceptance of the proposal is unlikely where the system threatens fundamental rights. In addition, the proposal does not solve the core issue of legal authority, and the prospect of conflicting regulation worldwide as well as within the United States exists even if the proposal is adopted by the global Internet community. Legislative action within the United States may avoid this piecemeal and inconsistent regulation and place the Internet's administration on a healthy legal foundation for the next stage of its development. Such legislation would clarify the jurisdiction and authority of those Internet groups deemed necessary for Internet administration. The legislation would also designate a single federal agency as a liaison between those groups, having the power to preempt state and local regulation of Internet administration. More ambitiously, on the global scale, the Internet needs an international agreement on the structure of Internet governance. Though some may resist any legislation or international agreements, the history of the development of radio broadcasting after World War I demonstrates that the Internet requires such organization to sort out conflicting claims, impart some order and promote the future development of the Internet.

Transparency of personal data processing is a basic privacy principle and a right that is well acknowledged by data protection legislation, such as the EU general data protection regulation (GDPR). The objective of ex post transparency enhancing tools (TETs) is to provide users with insight about what data have been processed about them and what possible consequences might arise after their data have been revealed, that is, ex post. This survey assesses the state of the art in scientific literature of the usability of ex post TETs enhancing privacy and discusses them in terms of their common features and unique characteristics. The article first defines the scope of usable transparency in terms of relevant privacy principles for providing transparency by taking the GDPR as a point of reference, and usability principles that are important for achieving transparency. These principles for usable transparency serve as a reference for classifying and assessing the surveyed TETs. The retrieval and screening process of the publications is then described, as is the process for deriving the subsequent classification of the characteristics of the TETs. The survey not only looks into what is made transparent by the TETs but also how transparency is actually achieved. A main contribution of this survey is a proposed classification that assesses the TETs based on their functionality, implementation and evaluation as described in the literature. It concludes by discussing the trends and limitations of the surveyed TETs in regard to the defined scope of usable TETs and shows possible directions of future research for addressing these gaps. This survey provides researchers and developers of privacy enhancing technologies an overview of the characteristics of state of the art ex post TETs, on which they can base their work. ; Privacy&Us

The 2020s will finally be the decade of cyberlaw, not as 'Law of the Horse', but as digital natives finally help bring the law syllabus, legal practice and even legislatures into the Information Society. In the first part of the chapter, I explain how the cyberlawyers of the 1990s dealt with regulation of the then novel features of the public Internet. Internet law was a subject of much interest in the 1990s in the US, and some specialist interest in UK and Europe. In Part 2, I explain the foundational rules for the adaptation of liability online initially focussed on absolving intermediaries of legal responsibility for end user posted content. This exceptionalist approach gradually gave way. While some US authors are hamstrung by a faith in the myth of the superuser and somewhat benign intentions of corporations as opposed to federal and state government, there has been a gradual convergence on the role of regulated self-regulation (or co-regulation) on both sides of the Atlantic. In Part 3, I argue that the use of co-regulation has been fundamentally embedded since European nations began to enforce these rules, with limited enforcement in which judges and regulators stated that business models largely focussed on encouraging illegal posting would not be protected. Settled policy on liability, privacy, trust, encryption, open Internet policies against filtering, were arrived at as a result of expert testimony and exhaustive hearings. In the final Part 4, I argue that hanging those policies on a whim results in potentially catastrophic results in terms of untying the Gordian knots of intermediary safe harbour/harbor, privacy, copyright enforcement, and open Internet European regulations.

Intro -- Contents -- Introducing a Holistic Approach to Personal Data -- Part I: Fundamentals of Personal Data: Between Personal Property Rights and Regulation -- The Golden Age of Personal Data: How to Regulate an Enabling Fundamental Right? -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The Rationale of Fundamental Rights Protection for Privacy and Personal Data -- 2.1 Privacy and Data Protection as Stand-Alone Fundamental Rights -- 2.2 Privacy and Data Protection as Enabling Rights -- 2.3 The Enabling Function of Privacy and Data Protection in the EU -- 3 Big Data, Algorithmic Decision-Making, and Interference with Individual Rights and Freedoms -- 3.1 Big Data and Algorithmic Decision-Making -- 3.2 Interference with Individual Rights and Freedoms -- 3.3 EU Data Protection Law -- 4 Contribution of Data Protection Law to Protecting Individual Rights and Freedoms -- 5 Conclusion -- References -- Additional Sources -- From Personality to Property? -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Individualism and Privacy: Protection Against the Press -- 2.1 The Right to Privacy -- 2.2 Personality Rights -- 3 Dictatorship, Census and Eavesdropping: Protection Against Government -- 3.1 Oppressive Government and Technological Advance -- 3.2 Curious Government and Technological Advance -- 3.3 Disproportionate Balancing of Freedom and Security -- 4 Scoring and Ubiquitous Computing: Protection Against Enterprises -- 4.1 Blurring the Line Between Public and Private Spheres -- 4.2 Efficient Markets and Redistributive Effects of Data Protection -- 5 From Consent to Property: Taboo or Solution? -- 5.1 Autonomous Consent in a World of Information Asymmetries -- 5.2 Towards a Property Right in Personal Data? -- 5.2.1 Economic Rights to Personal Data -- 5.2.2 Right to One's Data as a Solution to Legal Inconsistencies -- 5.2.3 Towards a Dualistic Data Protection Law? -- 6 Conclusion -- References.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart. INTRODUCTION: Clinical decision support science is expanding to include integration from broader and more varied data sources, diverse platforms and delivery modalities, and is responding to emerging regulatory guidelines and increased interest from industry.OBJECTIVE: Evaluate key advances and challenges of accessing, sharing, and managing data from multiple sources for development and implementation of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems in 2016-2017.METHODS: Assessment of literature and scientific conference proceedings, current and pending policy development, and review of commercial applications nationally and internationally.RESULTS: CDS research is approaching multiple landmark points driven by commercialization interests, emerging regulatory policy, and increased public awareness. However, the availability of patient-related "Big Data" sources from genomics and mobile health, expanded privacy considerations, applications of service-based computational techniques and tools, the emergence of "app" ecosystems, and evolving patient-centric approaches reflect the distributed, complex, and uneven maturity of the CDS landscape. Nonetheless, the field of CDS is yet to mature. The lack of standards and CDS-specific policies from regulatory bodies that address the privacy and safety concerns of data and knowledge sharing to support CDS development may continue to slow down the broad CDS adoption within and across institutions.CONCLUSION: Partnerships with Electronic Health Record and commercial CDS vendors, policy makers, standards development agencies, clinicians, and patients are needed to see CDS deployed in the evolving learning health system.

In research academic computing, may be natural to emphasize data integrity over confidentiality. However, there are numerous categories of academic research that do have data confidentiality requirements, from research that is simply embargoed until a future publication date to research that contains industry-owned proprietary information or is subject to government regulation. The contents of this report are based on numerous community conversations with leaders in academic research IT, data librarians, computer science researchers, computer security professionals, and others with roles involving using or enabling the use of sensitive data in academic research. The report discusses challenges to conducting research on data that is in some way sensitive, and solutions that are being used or could be used to address those challenges and enable the research to take place. Those solutions include technical solutions as well as administrative and procedural issues. The report concludes with recommendations to campuses on issues to consider in order to enable research on sensitive data while ensuring security and privacy as well as usability and usefulness of the environment hosting that data.