The Rights Of An International Human Right

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

In my opinion, I believe such law should be diminished. If this continues, a criminal, a doctor, a pharmacist, an engineer or a politician can remove their earlier misdeeds from the search engines. People would not be able to access their background and might take some wrong decisions. Individuals can get away from their earlier malicious deeds just due to this law of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ that hides such individual’s information from the common people. This goes against the right to get access to information or freedom of information for common people. For example, if a doctor has some negative record about a surgery that went wrong leading to a patient’s death and he removes such information from the search engine, people cannot take the right decision whether to choose the doctor. Again, people might end up voting a politician who has corruption cases against him. If there is review about a restaurant serving unhealthy food,

The right to privacy is viewed as a fundamental right all over the world. However, there are many interpretations of what privacy is, and this interpretations are in some way related to historical events that shaped the meaning of privacy differently for every country. Countries of the European Union consider the right to privacy a sacred right, therefore, they have established laws to protect the respect for private and family life and the right to personal data protection. Although United States has some sector laws to protect privacy, the constitution does not mention privacy as fundamental right, nonetheless, the notion of privacy can be extracted from the first 10 amendments of the constitution. Consequently, regulation of the right to privacy changes drastically between Europe and the United States. Countries in Europe have regulatory agencies whose only purpose is protect the privacy of its citizens. In contrast, the

As this article concludes you may ask the question: what’s the solution to this seemingly everlasting issue? And the solution’’s a bit dissapointing, dissapointing because in retrospect, there is no solution. As long as there are selfish, money crazed, organizations out there, we’ll never have the true privacy our rights give

How much are Americans hiding? With internet and social media, these days it is hard to hide any personal information.  It is as easy as searching a person’s name in Google to find out any information needed about a certain individual. This allows any records to be available to be seen online, and a person’s past to remain apart of their future, or their internet search. Europeans on the other hand, can hide whatever they want on the internet with the “right to be forgotten,” requesting Google to take off any unwanted information from their search engine at any time. As Europe pushes for this law in the United States more everyday, many citizens in the U.S. can think of things they would want erased about themselves from internet searches, but they also need to think of how much they would want hidden from their own eyes about others. Although Europe strongly supports the “right to be forgotten” and giving internet users more control over their online reputations, the United States should not acquire this law because it would go against the first amendment (the right of free speech), it would be “unfair and deceptive”(Peterson, 2015, par. 2) to U.S. citizens, and it would allow other countries to determine American’s laws or freedom.

Daniel J. Solove is the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, one of the world’s leading experts on privacy law, and well known for his academic work on privacy and its correlations with technology. Author of many popular books, Solove also served as White House counsel for President Nixon. In the article, The Nothing-to-Hide Argument, Solove further explains the threats of allowing the government to access personal information. One of many arguments in regards to privacy, is freedom and how it hinders people under surveillance, giving a sense of being less inferior. People don’t Acknowledge certain problems because they don’t fit into the particular one-size-fits-all conception of privacy (Solove 738). Privacy is a right granted to every individual that reinforces the freedoms of expression, association and assembly; being that the U.S. is a democratic society and should not be tampered with.

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.

“See you in court” has often been the mantra cried when a person feels their privacy has been violated, or their free speech infringed. When people take a legal cause of action against a party, they feel wronged them, then sue them in court for damages, this is known as a tort (p. 110). Current laws seem to favor free speech above privacy rights. These complex legal issues are often viewed through a libertarian or authoritarian lens. When the internet came along it compounded the difficulty of these matters. In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in response to growing issues sprouting from the new medium, the internet. Privacy expert and law professor, Daniel J. Solove addresses these complex legal issues in chapters

Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset

In the Age of Information or the Era of the Internet, everyone is connected. Everyone carries around a computer in their pocket with more than enough computing power to send a man to the moon. Invisibly, data is constantly flowing. Virtually everything we interact with in today’s world has one thing in common: the internet. It plays a huge role in everything from sharing pictures with friends to the election. It is widely accessible and houses a wealth of information. Anyone should be able to access the network of data that is the internet. However, just as this Swiss Army Knife of innovation can be applied towards the common good, it can also be limited and used nefariously—an action that manifests itself in the form of censorship. Internet

Two types of laws are adopted by various countries to protect the sensitive information of individuals on the web. The first kind, comprehensive laws, are laws “that govern the collection, use and dissemination of personal information by both the public and private sectors”6. These general laws do not deal with individual areas like health care or educational systems. Instead, they establish standards for use of private information for all entities. Comprehensive laws are usually adopted for one of three reasons: to remedy past injustices, to promote electronic commerce or to ensure that laws are consistent with Pan-European laws7. In addition, comprehensive laws often require the establishment of an independent commissioner to oversee the enforcement of the law. Unfortunately, problems arise because either a lack of resources hinders

The information that we put online has no privacy what so ever and I’ve known that just never paid mind to it. If Google has all the search engines we use throughout the years what privacy is there? What is the whole purpose of keeping track of the information or the stuff we search? I do believe that there should be more laws concerning our privacy but how private will we be able to get. I don’t think that we have full privacy rights. At some extend we always end up sharing our information, either via online, via phone or via mail. I don’t think that there is much that can be done to protect an individual’s

Privacy either encourages or is a necessary factor of human securities and fundamental value such as human embarrassment, independence, distinctiveness, freedom, and public affection. Being completely subject to mutual scrutiny will begin to lose self-respect, independence, distinctiveness, and freedom as a result of the sometimes strong burden to conform to public outlooks.

It is also known as the Data Erasure. The conditions for erasure, as laid out in article 17, incorporate the information no longer being significant to unique purposes for handling, or a data subjects pulling back consent. It should also be noted that this right requires controllers to compare the subjects' rights to

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to