Information Technology Law

Information Technology Law

Introduction

The digital economy has promoted the growth of many organizations and countries. Many global businesses have benefited consumers and citizens. The digital economy delivers unique prospects for improvement, social networks, and operative problem resolution. However, consumers of digital amenities reveal many individual facts and gen. Rapid progress in the arena of technology joined with the inclination of globalization has shaped intense deviations through which people trust their private data to exploration apparatuses, websites, and media platforms.  The massive capacity and variation of facts created by consumers might not be controlled professionally by conservative procedures of data retrieval and examination (Burri & Schär, 2016, pg. 78). This causes numerous challenges regarding the formation of a supportable method of defending the confidentiality of folks in the universal internet atmosphere. Likewise, current data safety laws are depicted to be powerless since they lack actual permissions for members who disturb data safety guidelines. Consequently, the condition forced the European Union to suggest a directive termed as the General Data Protection Regulation to enhance the privileges to internet privacy by citizens of the European Union (Urquhart & Rodden, 2017 pg. 35).  This paper discusses the view that the General Data Protection Regulation is the perfect legal response to the data privacy challenges raised by the modern Digital Age.

Personal Data Privacy

The increase in the number of online users has created some challenges in the access and retrieval of information. The hundreds of online services have caused some privacy challenges where private accounts have been tempered by unauthorized persons (Bennett, & Raab, 2017 pg. 89). The accessibility has caused this inefficiency to internet services at any location in the world. As a result, many internet users have lacked control over the processing of personal data and storage.  Many countries have developed laws that enhance the protection of private data as a fundamental human right (Caruana, 2019, pg. 78). The European Union joyfully adopted the data protection regulations that would control the accessibility, retrial, and storage of the business data following the constitution. In this regard, the law would oversee the implementation of privacy freedom in the protection of the company and individual data.

According to Chassang (2017 pg. 56), privacy in the field of technology implies the need to be “left alone” in the processing and use of personal information. This right was developed by Louis Brandleis and Samuel Warren, who defined privacy based on determining the rightful purpose of maintaining internet privacy. The viewpoint is primarily based on personal control and the use of individual information. However, privacy can be termed as the single determination founded on the notion that the inability to personally control the data might influence the inability to effectively utilize the personal information (Moore & Piwek, 2017 pg. 32). In this regard, the difficulty in the use of personal data is caused by the problem of accessing the right data. Vieira, Stevens & Rankin (2018 pg. 34) holds that privacy in this digital era has various definitions that are determined by the application to personal data and management. A variety of such explanations is closely related to being able to control information and actions about oneself. While numerous researchers depict privacy to be of intrinsic quality and people’s rights, others underscore it to be an influential part of confidentiality, for example, a shield of individuality in the creation of personal judgments.

Nevertheless, the prerogative can not continuously be influential (Voigt &Von dem Bussche, 2017 pg. 56) and cannot be seen as crucial in the defense in the growth of a person’s personality and temperament (De Hert &Papakonstantinou, 2016 pg. 120). Caruana (2019) describes confidentiality as an imprecise awareness around personal independence, uniqueness organization, independent involvement, and social management, both regarding diverse, nonetheless consistent, social anxieties. Hornung (2013 pg. 45) denotes that people ought to syndicate the distinct worries to the position by the social, philosophical, and moral grounds of confidentiality discovery. According to Shackelford (2016, pg. 444), privacy is directly connected to the concept of self-government in the democratic process. In this breath, the global expectations of many governments are to create an atmosphere of freedom, starting from the management to the personal data and the control of the internet accounts. Therefore, Shackelford argues that there is a connection between liberty and privacy. Privacy, according to the present business life, an organization or individual has the privilege to control the client’s data in the procession, retrieval, and storage (Regulation, 2018 pg. 111). Politicians have extended this right to denote the concept of free speech and articulation of personal needs and perceptions concerning some matters of national concern.

Nevertheless, the introduction of more social media platforms in the world has dramatically exposed the personal accounts to the agents of destruction and interruption. Many individual facts continue to be revealed through media due to the governments’ mechanisms to link the identification process of personal data. The Internet has become insecure to personal data, and therefore general data protection regulation (GDPR) is the only solution that would ensure the right to privacy prevails.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The establishment of distinctive technically neutral futuristic regulations for the European Union seems to be the greatest achievement in this digital environment. This is fundamental, especially in the protection of personal data. Moreover, Reding (2012 pg45) identifies that privacy regulations are” broadly burdened, less-enforced, obsolete and pending realism orders in law court” and need urgent mitigation. In this regard, the development of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by January 2012 was designed to define the protection of personal data as not absolute. This regulation has seen the development of a single digital shop for the European Union with over 30 internal markets. This has proved to be a centralizing agent to the global data control mechanism that would oversee the accessibility and monitoring of personal data. Firstly, the regulation provides a legal framework in the provision of digital data, especially the protection of individual information. According to Torra (2017 pg. 92), the regulation has provided a platform that harmonizes and mobilizes legal frameworks on dealing with the digital data concerns among the member countries. These laws are therefore seen as the universal expectations that jointly perform the role of unifying the accessibility and process of the online information. The practice is cost-effective because it has promoted the saving of over $2.3 billion annually (Voigt & Von dem Bussche, 2017, pg. 112). Considering the harsh economic times experienced by most countries, the decision to a single digital market is fundamentally crucial for the future of all nations. The regulation can universally be improved to incinerate more useful ideas but at cheaper costs than the previous personal data protection mechanisms.

Secondly, the organization has played a significant role in implementing uniform ground for all the institutions in the European Union to manage their information. The directive has seen many organizations shift their domiciling in the European Union (Vieira, Stevens & Rankin, 2018, pg. 321). A unification effort has been witnessed by uniting the member countries by the use of a single digital market. Each state has gained equal ground in the depiction of its identity in the digital market. This effort grants each nation an opportunity to control the accessibility and control of personal data with fewer restrictions. These laws have unified the operation of the organizations within the region by setting up universal standards that must be realized in the provision of digital data services (Tikkinen-Piri, Rohunen & Markkula, 2018 pg. 264). The access and utilization of the personal data among these institutions have been clear and smooth, thus encouraging openness and accountability in the provision of digital services. Consequently, the legal process of internet control has become global, with other countries outside the union joining to enhance the protection of the individual rights of their countries (Reding, 2012 pg321).

Objectively, the scheme aims at controlling an individual over the personal data. This implies that the regulations put limits on the individual rights of a client but does not interfere with their data. The mechanism entails the laws guarding personal information against any forms of interference (Reding, 2012 pg323). Secondly, the objective of the general data protection is to ensure legal confidence that would reduce the managerial afflictions for the organizations. The uncontrollable measure of internet services has enhanced its access regardless of the location. This has achieved standardization from the service providers whose aim has been to promote the protection of the individual data effectively. According to the EU commissioner for justice, human rights, Viviane Reding, in her press conference, denotes that general data protection continues to protect the individual data, which has promoted trust and stability in the accessibility and use of digital data (Reding, 2012 pg321).  It is notably essential to mention that most businesses that are based on the digital data platforms have grown tremendously because the customers’ trust from the service providers has enhanced their acceptance of new services and products.

Justice, for instance, has been at the doorsteps of most citizens due to the unification of the data accessibility and regulations that are founded on the same laws (Regulation, 2018 pg. 564). Additionally, the mechanism of digital data protection has enhanced the provision of essential services and products into the market to control the digital challenges of technology. Therefore, quality has been achieved in member countries through the efforts of transparency and truthfulness. Technological advancement is believed to be the basis for the bloc’s economic growth, which is primarily founded on central data management.

According to Regulation (2018 pg. 104), the General Data Protection Regulation has ensured the provision of relevant information needed in making more informed decisions. The regulation has given individuals the power to control their data within the given frameworks within their accessibility (Moore & Piwek, 2017, pg. 23). The control over the private data has seen the customers pose some powers over the company management due to the regulation by the general data protection. Accountability of the companies has been enhanced through the ease retrieval of data by the subject at any time (Mittelstadt & Floridi, 2016 pg. 456). The companies have had less regulation over the individual data of their employees and clients’ thus remaining faithful in the delivery of services. The individuals have the right to erase data from their accounts and modify market suitability. Essentially, the practice of granting individuals the power to protect their data gives them the ability to shape their lives with fewer restrictions from the service providers (Mantelero, 2017 pg. 123).

The GDPR has forced many businesses to be more liable to implementation movements. Firms that have not conformed to the guidelines are penalized by the enforcement offices, which guard facts at the national levels. The consultants have been able to apply fines that are close to $2.3 million annual income of the business (Lynskey, 2015 pg. 456).  These fines have worked to reshape the modes of companies and their operations. According to Lynskey (2015), general data protection has enhanced sanity in the business operations that conform to the human rights provisions and justice through encouraging ethical management practices based on market standards.

In conclusion, general data protection regulation is the best option to go by in resolving the digital challenges experienced in this current era. It is important to note that the provision for data protection seeks to unify the world in the operation of businesses, thus reducing the national regulations that limit the access to market services and products. Such efforts are predicted to improve foreign policies by setting standards for privacy for both the clients and employees. Nevertheless, according to Hornung (2013 pg. 78), the monitoring practice is predicted to “stiffen Commercial innovation, flops to inspire the marketplace progress, and creating prospects for unnecessary discoveries.” This means that regulatory efforts are likely to hinder innovations on global markets; thus care need to be taken on an occasional review of the laws to ensure applicability and implementations of these policies.

Reference List

Bennett, C.J., and Raab, C.D., 2017. The governance of privacy: Policy instruments in a global perspective. Routledge.

Boban, M., 2016. Digital single market and EU data protection reform concerning the processing of personal data as the challenge of the modern world. Economic and social development: book of proceedings, p.191.

Burri, M., and Schär, R., 2016. The reform of the EU data protection framework: outlining fundamental changes and assessing their fitness for a data-driven economy. Journal of Information Policy, 6(1), pp.479-511.

Caruana, M.M., 2019. The reform of the EU data protection framework in the context of the police and criminal justice sector: harmonization, scope, oversight, and enforcement. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 33(3), pp.249-270.

Chassang, G., 2017. The impact of the EU general data protection regulation on scientific research. ecancermedicalscience, 11.

Cormack, A.N., 2016. A data protection framework for learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(1), pp.91-106.

Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., and Spence, L., 2019. Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.

De Hert, P., and Papakonstantinou, V., 2016. The new General Data Protection Regulation: Still a sound system for the protection of individuals?. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(2), pp.179-194.

Determann, L., 2017. Adequacy of Data Protection in the EU-General Data Protection Regulation as Global Benchmark for Privacy Laws?. Available at SSRN 2902228.

Edwards, L., 2016. Privacy, security, and data protection in smart cities: A critical EU law perspective. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev., 2, p.28.

Goodman, B. and Flaxman, S., 2017. European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”. AI Magazine, 38(3), pp.50-57.

Hornung, G., 2013. Regulating privacy enhancing technologies: seizing the opportunity of the future European Data Protection Framework. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(1-2), pp.181-196.

Jay, R., Malcolm, W., Parry, E., Townsend, L. and Bapat, A., 2017. Guide to 

Jougleux, P., Leventakis, G. and Mitrou, L., 2019. Community Policing in the Light of the New European Data Protection Legal Framework. In Synergy of Community Policing and Technology (pp. 15-29). Springer, Cham.

Kronabeter, A. and Fenz, S., 2012, September. Cloud security and privacy in the light of the 2012 EU data protection regulation. In International Conference on Cloud Computing (pp. 114-123). Springer, Cham.

Lynskey, O., 2015. The foundations of EU data protection law. Oxford University Press.

Macenaite, M., 2017. From universal towards child-specific protection of the right to privacy online: Dilemmas in the EU General Data Protection Regulation. New Media & Society, 19(5), pp.765-779.

Mantelero, A., 2017. Regulating big data. The guidelines of the Council of Europe in the context of the European data protection framework. Computer law & security review, 33(5), pp.584-602.

Mascalzoni, D., Bentzen, H.B., Budin-Ljøsne, I., Bygrave, L.A., Bell, J., Dove, E.S., Fuchsberger, C., Hveem, K., Mayrhofer, M.T., Meraviglia, V. and O’Brien, D.R., 2019. Are requirements to deposit data in research repositories compatible with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation?. Annals of internal medicine, 170(5), pp.332-334.

Mittelstadt, B.D. and Floridi, L. eds., 2016. The ethics of biomedical big data (Vol. 29). Springer.

Moore, P. and Piwek, L., 2017. Regulating wellbeing in the brave new quantified workplace. Employee Relations, 39(3), pp.308-316.

Reding, V., 2012. The European data protection framework for the twenty-first century. International Data Privacy Law, 2(3), pp.119-129.

Regulation, P., 2018. General data protection regulation. INTOUCH

Shackelford, S.J., 2016. Protecting intellectual property and privacy in the digital age: the use of national cybersecurity strategies to mitigate cyber risk. Chap. L. Rev., 19, p.445.

Tikkinen-Piri, C., Rohunen, A. and Markkula, J., 2018. EU General Data Protection Regulation: Changes and implications for personal data collecting companies. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(1), pp.134-153.

Torra, V., 2017. Data privacy: Foundations, new developments and the big data challenge. Springer International Publishing.

Urquhart, L. and Rodden, T., 2017. New directions in information technology law: learning from human–computer interaction. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 31(2), pp.150-169.

Vieira, R., Stevens, S. and Rankin, J., 2018. Knowledge of the new General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) and its impact on the registration of congenital anomalies in Europe. In European Journal of Human Genetics.

Voigt, P. and Von dem Bussche, A., 2017. The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr). A Practical Guide, 1st Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Waldvogel, M., Caronni, G., Sun, D., Weiler, N. and Plattner, B., 1999. The VersaKey framework: Versatile group key management. IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications, 17(9), pp.1614-1631.