The right to privacy and corporations

Traditionally the right of privacy has not been recognised at common law. However, recently the High Court has indicated that it may be willing to develop a new tort of invasion of privacy. Several of the justices have stated that the new action would only relate to natural persons, not corporations. This is because the principles said to underpin the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, are supposedly inapposite to corporations. This article argues that this reasoning is flawed. Neither the right to autonomy nor dignity is capable of underpinning the right to privacy. Hence, no sustainable basis has so far been advanced for restricting the availability of any future tort of invasion of privacy to individuals. This article also questions whether a separate tort is needed in view of the protection already provided to the privacy interests of individuals and corporations under the equitable doctrine of confidence.

The right to privacy: appealing, but flawed

The right to privacy is not recognised at common law. However, like many  other rights, it has gained increasing prominence and legal recognition  since the explosion in rights-based normative discourse following the  Second World War. Rights-based moral theories are appealing because their language is individualising; promising to expand the sphere of liberty and protection offered to people. It is therefore not surprising that we as  individuals are attracted to such theories - they allow us a vehicle through  which we can project our wishes and demands onto the community. While in abstract the right to privacy sounds appealing, it has many potential  disadvantages. This article examines the justification for the right to privacy. It argues that either the right is illusory (devoid of an overarching doctrinal rationale) or at its highest the right to privacy is an insignificant right - one which should rarely trump other interests. It follows that there is a need to re-assess the desirability of introducing a separate cause of action protecting privacy interests.

The right to be forgotten under European Law: a Constitutional debate

Cet article met en lumière la perspective européenne sur un des plus importants défis que l’Internet et le Web 2.0 présente pour la vie privée et le droit à la protection des données. L’auteur y soulève des problématiques liées à la mémoire numérique et distingue à partir de plusieurs cas où les individus seraient intéressés de réclamer l'oubli tant dans les réseaux sociaux, les journaux officiels des gouvernements et dans les bibliothèques médiatiques numériques. Il trace l’histoire de l’identification du droit à l’oubli dont les fondements ont été définis par les agences françaises, italiennes et espagnoles de protection des données. En conclusion, il pose son regard sur un nouveau cadre européen de la protection des données comprenant le droit individuel à voir leurs données supprimées lorsqu’elles ne sont plus nécessaires à des fins légitimes.

“Right to Privacy and Freedom of Press - Conflicts and Challenges”

India is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political 1966, the two major International instruments, building the foundations of the major democracies and the constitutions of the world. Both these instruments give an independent and upper position to right to privacy compared to right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of press finds its place under this right to freedom of speech and expression. Both these rights are the two opposite faces of the same coin. Therefore, without the right of privacy finding an equal place in Indian law compared to right to freedom of speech and expression, the working of democracy would be severely handicapped and violations against citizens rights will be on the rise It was this problem in law and need to bring a balance between these two conflicting rights that induced me to undertake this venture. This heavy burden to bring in a mechanism to balance these two rights culminated in me to undertake this thesis titled “Right to Privacy and Freedom of Press – Conflicts and Challenges

The Right to Be Forgotten More Than a Pandora’s Box?

Recently, political voices have stressed the need to introduce a right to be forgotten as new human right. Individuals should have the right to make potentially damaging information disappear after a certain time has elapsed. Such new right, however, can come in conflict with the principle of free speech. Therefore, its scope needs to be evaluated in the light of appropriate data protection rules. Insofar, a more user-centered approach is to be realized. “Delete” can not be a value as such, but must be balanced within a new legal framework.

On the Search for an Adequate Scope of the Right to Be Forgotten

During the last decades, the virtual world increasingly gained importance and in this context the enforcement of privacy rights became more and more difficult. An important emanation of this trend is the right to be forgotten enshrining the protection of the data subject’s rights over his/her “own” data. Even though the right to be forgotten has been made part of the proposal for a completely revised Data Protection Regulation and has recently been acknowledged by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“Google/Spain” decision), to date, the discussions about the right and especially its implementation with regard to the fundamental right to freedom of expression have remained rather vague and need to be examined in more depth.

Perpetual Conflict or Compromise? The Cost of Domestic Legitimacy in the Realm of Women's Human Rights: A Case Study on the Right to an Abortion

With its turbulent and volatile legal evolution, the right to an abortion in the United States still remains a highly contested issue and has developed into one of the most divisive topics within modern legal discourse. By deconstructing the political underpinnings and legal rationale of the right to an abortion through a systematic case law analysis, I will demonstrate that this right has been incrementally destabilized. This instability embedded in abortion jurisprudence has been primarily produced by a combination of textual ambiguity in the case law and judicial ambivalence regarding this complex area of law. In addition, I argue that the use of the largely discredited substantive due process doctrine to ground this contentious right has also contributed to the lack of legal stability. I assert that when these elements culminate in the realm of reproductive privacy the right to terminate a pregnancy becomes increasingly unstable and contested.

Evolving citizenship : "the right to protest and the right to dance"

Citizenship is a term of association among strangers. Access to it involves contested identities and symbolic meanings, differing power relations and strategies of inclusion, exclusion and action, and unequal room for maneuver or productivity in the uses of citizenship for any given group or individual. In the context of "rethinking communication," strenuous action is neede to associate such different life chances in a common enterprise at a national level or, more modestly, simply to claim equivalence for all such groups under the rule of one law.

The right to be green: using human rights law to achieve environmental protection

The relationship between the environment and human rights has long been recognised. It is now largely accepted that a ‘good’ environment is a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, and even the right to life. It has even been suggested that as humans we all possess a right to live in an environment of a certain standard, based on the intrinsic value of the natural world to all human beings. In this context much has been written regarding the important role that the environment plays in human lives. This paper looks at the flip-side of this discussion, and examines what human rights can do for the environment. It is argued that, while there are valid criticisms for linking environmental protection too strongly to human needs, there is nonetheless much to be gained from using human rights law as a framework to achieve environmental protection.

When the right to be counted doesn’t count : the politics and challenges of researching the health of asylum seekers

A fundamental prerequisite of population health research is the ability to establish an accurate denominator. This in turn requires that every individual in the study population is counted. However, this seemingly simple principle has become a point of conflict between researchers whose aim is to produce evidence of disparities in population health outcomes and governments whose policies promote(intentionally or not) inequalities that are the underlying causes of health disparities. Research into the health of asylum seekers is a case in point. There is a growing body of evidence documenting the adverse affects of recent changes in asylum-seeking legislation, including mandatory detention. However, much of this evidence has been dismissed by some governments as being unsound, biased and unscientific because, it is argued, evidence is derived from small samples or from case studies. Yet, it is the policies of governments that are the key barrier to the conduct of rigorous population health research on asylum seekers. In this paper, the authors discuss the challenges of counting asylum seekers and the limitations of data reported in some industrialized countries. They argue that the lack of accurate statistical data on asylum seekers has been an effective neo-conservative strategy for erasing the health inequalities in this vulnerable population, indeed a strategy that renders invisible this population. They describe some alternative strategies that may be used by researchers to obtain denominator data on hard-to-reach populations such as asylum seekers.

The right to choose an assisted death : time for legislation?

The legal framework that operates at the end of life in Australia needs to be reformed. • Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently unlawful. • Both activities nevertheless occur not infrequently in Australia, in part because palliative care cannot relieve physical and psychological pain and suffering in all cases. • In this respect, the law is deficient. The law is also unfair because it doesn’t treat people equally. Some people can be helped to die on their own terms as a result of their knowledge and/or connections while some are able to hasten their death by the refusal of life-sustaining treatment. But others do not have access to the means for their life to end. • A very substantial majority of Australians have repeatedly expressed in public opinion polls their desire for law reform on these matters. Many are concerned at what they see is happening to their loved ones as they reach the end of their lives, and want the confidence that when their time comes they will be able to exercise choice in relation to assisted dying. • The most consistent reason advanced not to change the law is the need to protect the vulnerable. There is a concern that if the law allows voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for some people, it will be expanded and abused, including pressures being placed on highly dependent people and those with disabilities to agree to euthanasia. • But there is now a large body of experience in a number of international jurisdictions following the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. This shows that appropriate safeguards can be implemented to protect vulnerable people and prevent the abuse that opponents of assisted dying have feared. It reveals that assisted dying meets a real need among a small minority of people at the end of their lives. It also provides reassurance to people with terminal and incurable disease that they will not be left to suffer the indignities and discomfort of a nasty death. • Australia is an increasingly secular society. Strong opposition to assisted death by religious groups that is based on their belief in divine sanctity of all human life is not a justification for denying choice for those who do not share that belief. • It is now time for Australian legislators to respond to this concern and this experience by legislating to enhance the quality of death for those Australians who seek assisted dying.

Baidu’s perfect paradox : free speech and the right to censor

China’s biggest search engine has a constitutional right to filter its search results, a US court found last month. But that’s just the start of the story. Eight New York-based pro-democracy activists sued Baidu Inc in 2011, seeking damages because Baidu prevents their work from showing up in search results. Baidu follows Chinese law that requires it to censor politically sensitive results. But in what the plaintiffs’ lawyer has dubbed a “perfect paradox”, US District Judge Jesse Furman has dismissed the challenge, explaining that to hold Baidu liable for its decisions to censor pro-democracy content would itself infringe the right to free speech.

The paradigm shift in realising the right to read : how ebook libraries are enabling in the university sector

Millions of people with print disabilities are denied the right to read. While some important efforts have been made to convert standard books to accessible formats and create accessible repositories, these have so far only addressed this crisis in an ad hoc way. This article argues that universally designed ebook libraries have the potential of substantially enabling persons with print disabilities. As a case study of what is possible, we analyse 12 academic ebook libraries to map their levels of accessibility. The positive results from this study indicate that universally designed ebooks are more than possible; they exist. While results are positive, however, we also found that most ebook libraries have some features that frustrate full accessibility, and some ebook libraries present critical barriers for people with disabilities. Based on these findings, we consider that some combination of private pressure and public law is both possible and necessary to advance the right-to-read cause. With access improving and recent advances in international law, now is the time to push for universal design and equality.