Privacy Rights/Culture and Politics/Country intepretation - Revision history

Jkochan1 at 12:26, 20 March 2023

2023-03-20T12:26:52Z

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 The Prüm Convention demonstrates another aspect of inter-European collaboration in crime-solving efforts, leading to interesting implications for data privacy. Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and Spain all signed this treaty, to which other nations can opt-in, in an effort to increase cross-border security (Prüm Convetion, [[Probable year:: 2005]]) . At the roots, it allows the parties to ask each other for help solving crimes by sharing data from each nation’s crime database (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]],  86). By not creating an international crime database, each nation is required to ask other nations for the needed data (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]],  86). This method allows the shared data to be governed by each nation’s specific data privacy laws, but it lands in an unregulated grey area after the data transfer (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]],  85). Differences in privacy law become clear when looking at what personal data is collected from people. Some states collect DNA in all criminal cases, others only when the person has been in prison for over two years, and others do not collect DNA at all (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]],  86). In the context of solving international crime, these differences mean some states tend to be more helpful than others.
-Resources
+References:
-Community Law. (n.d.). Entry powers: When the police can come into your home. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year:: 2021]],  from https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-31-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/
+Community Law. (n.d.). Entry powers: When the police can come into your home. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-31-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/
 }}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:12:41Z

transformed

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-11-25T19:55:10Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Country intepretation
|questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=The right to privacy has been interpreted in various ways. The EU has strict legislation regarding data privacy and the Council of Europe has outlined in Article 8(1) of the ECHR ([[Probable year::1950]]) the right to privacy in the four spheres of family life, private life, communication, and the home (Wolford, n.d.). On the other hand, the United States has outlined protections from government interference in the private sphere in the Bill of Rights, has comparatively less (& less encompassing) legislation on the issue, and has relied on the courts to protect people from private entities and in the home (U.S. Constitution; [[Probable year::1787]], Amendment 4; Privacy, n.d.). These differences result in a more consistent application of privacy rights in Europe compared to the United States.

In the home, Europeans have had a safe, private space since [[Probable year::1950]] (ECHR, [[Probable year::1950]], Art. 8(1)). In the United States, this right wasn’t concrete until long after the Supreme Court began ruling on the privacy cases in the mid-[[Probable year::1960]]s (Privacy, n.d.). However, it remains that Americans have a higher expectation of privacy in the home than in a public area (Electronic Surveillance, n.d.). In an extreme example of lack of privacy in the home, Albanians working for the Soviet government did not own anything in their homes – the state owned it all (Lubonja, [[Probable year::2001]], 239).

Exceptions to privacy at home include police entering with and, in some cases, without a warrant. New Zealand also utilizes court-issued warrants to prevent officials from entering the home, but if officials are actively preventing a crime, enforcing a law, making an arrest, or aiding in an emergency, they do not need a warrant (Community Law, n.d.). Within the European Union, this warrant can come from a court within any part of the EU’s jurisdiction. The European Evidence Warrant (EEW) allows a warrant issued to gather evidence to be valid across the EU and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) applies this principle to the arrest of criminals taking exploiting the open borders within the EU (European evidence warrant, [[Probable year::2006]]; European arrest warrant, n.d.). EEWs can also be used to get cell phone records (The European evidence warrant, [[Probable year::2006]]) . In the United States, a customer can ask for those records to be turned over to authorities or authorities can use a subpoena (FCC [[Probable year::2019]]) .

The Prüm Convention demonstrates another aspect of inter-European collaboration in crime-solving efforts, leading to interesting implications for data privacy. Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and Spain all signed this treaty, to which other nations can opt-in, in an effort to increase cross-border security (Prüm Convetion, [[Probable year::2005]]) . At the roots, it allows the parties to ask each other for help solving crimes by sharing data from each nation’s crime database (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 86). By not creating an international crime database, each nation is required to ask other nations for the needed data (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 86). This method allows the shared data to be governed by each nation’s specific data privacy laws, but it lands in an unregulated grey area after the data transfer (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 85). Differences in privacy law become clear when looking at what personal data is collected from people. Some states collect DNA in all criminal cases, others only when the person has been in prison for over two years, and others do not collect DNA at all (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 86). In the context of solving international crime, these differences mean some states tend to be more helpful than others.

Resources

Community Law. (n.d.). Entry powers: When the police can come into your home. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-31-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/
Electronic Surveillance. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 20, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
European arrest warrant. (n.d.). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en
European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. Nov. 4, [[Probable year::1950]]. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
European evidence warrant. ([[Probable year::2006]], June 1). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/PRES_06_168
European evidence warrant, The: The acquisition and admissibility of foreign evidence. (n.d.). Academy of European Law. Retrieved Sept. 20, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=d24[[Probable year::1949]]a e554074b1e14fd12b7f05d3f5d1e38df00162723613600&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=12[[Probable year::1538]]
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). ([[Probable year::2019]], Dec. 30). Protecting your privacy: Phone and cable records. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/protecting-your-privacy
Lubonja, F. ([[Probable year::2001]]) . Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4097[[Probable year::1449]]
Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy
Prüm Convention. AT-BE-DE-ES-FR-LU-NL. May 27, [[Probable year::2005]]. 10900/05. https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/default/files/docs/body/prumtr.pdf
U.S. Constitution. Amendment IV. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Walsch, C. ([[Probable year::2008]], Nov. 9). Europeanization and democracy: Negotiating the Prum Treaty and the Schengen III Agreement. Politicka Misao, XVL(5), 81-90.
Wolford, B. (n.d.). What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law? GDPR EU. Retrieved Sept. 9, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/

}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 28 December 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively		\|questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=The right to privacy has been interpreted in various ways. The EU has strict legislation regarding data privacy and the Council of Europe has outlined in Article 8(1) of the ECHR ([[Probable year::1950]]) the right to privacy in the four spheres of family life, private life, communication, and the home (Wolford, n.d.). On the other hand, the United States has outlined protections from government interference in the private sphere in the Bill of Rights, has comparatively less (& less encompassing) legislation on the issue, and has relied on the courts to protect people from private entities and in the home (U.S. Constitution; [[Probable year::1787]], Amendment 4; Privacy, n.d.). These differences result in a more consistent application of privacy rights in Europe compared to the United States.		\|contents=The right to privacy has been interpreted in various ways. The EU has strict legislation regarding data privacy and the Council of Europe has outlined in Article 8(1) of the ECHR ([[Probable year:: 1950]]) the right to privacy in the four spheres of family life, private life, communication, and the home (Wolford, n.d.). On the other hand, the United States has outlined protections from government interference in the private sphere in the Bill of Rights, has comparatively less (& less encompassing) legislation on the issue, and has relied on the courts to protect people from private entities and in the home (U.S. Constitution; [[Probable year:: 1787]], Amendment 4; Privacy, n.d.). These differences result in a more consistent application of privacy rights in Europe compared to the United States.

	In the home, Europeans have had a safe, private space since [[Probable year::1950]] (ECHR, [[Probable year::1950]], Art. 8(1)). In the United States, this right wasn’t concrete until long after the Supreme Court began ruling on the privacy cases in the mid-[[Probable year::1960]]s (Privacy, n.d.). However, it remains that Americans have a higher expectation of privacy in the home than in a public area (Electronic Surveillance, n.d.). In an extreme example of lack of privacy in the home, Albanians working for the Soviet government did not own anything in their homes – the state owned it all (Lubonja, [[Probable year::2001]], 239).		In the home, Europeans have had a safe, private space since [[Probable year:: 1950]] (ECHR, [[Probable year:: 1950]], Art. 8(1)). In the United States, this right wasn’t concrete until long after the Supreme Court began ruling on the privacy cases in the mid-[[Probable year:: 1960]]s (Privacy, n.d.). However, it remains that Americans have a higher expectation of privacy in the home than in a public area (Electronic Surveillance, n.d.). In an extreme example of lack of privacy in the home, Albanians working for the Soviet government did not own anything in their homes – the state owned it all (Lubonja, [[Probable year:: 2001]], 239).

	Exceptions to privacy at home include police entering with and, in some cases, without a warrant. New Zealand also utilizes court-issued warrants to prevent officials from entering the home, but if officials are actively preventing a crime, enforcing a law, making an arrest, or aiding in an emergency, they do not need a warrant (Community Law, n.d.). Within the European Union, this warrant can come from a court within any part of the EU’s jurisdiction. The European Evidence Warrant (EEW) allows a warrant issued to gather evidence to be valid across the EU and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) applies this principle to the arrest of criminals taking exploiting the open borders within the EU (European evidence warrant, [[Probable year::2006]]; European arrest warrant, n.d.). EEWs can also be used to get cell phone records (The European evidence warrant, [[Probable year::2006]]) . In the United States, a customer can ask for those records to be turned over to authorities or authorities can use a subpoena (FCC [[Probable year::2019]]) .		Exceptions to privacy at home include police entering with and, in some cases, without a warrant. New Zealand also utilizes court-issued warrants to prevent officials from entering the home, but if officials are actively preventing a crime, enforcing a law, making an arrest, or aiding in an emergency, they do not need a warrant (Community Law, n.d.). Within the European Union, this warrant can come from a court within any part of the EU’s jurisdiction. The European Evidence Warrant (EEW) allows a warrant issued to gather evidence to be valid across the EU and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) applies this principle to the arrest of criminals taking exploiting the open borders within the EU (European evidence warrant, [[Probable year:: 2006]]; European arrest warrant, n.d.). EEWs can also be used to get cell phone records (The European evidence warrant, [[Probable year:: 2006]]) . In the United States, a customer can ask for those records to be turned over to authorities or authorities can use a subpoena (FCC [[Probable year:: 2019]]) .

	The Prüm Convention demonstrates another aspect of inter-European collaboration in crime-solving efforts, leading to interesting implications for data privacy. Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and Spain all signed this treaty, to which other nations can opt-in, in an effort to increase cross-border security (Prüm Convetion, [[Probable year::2005]]) . At the roots, it allows the parties to ask each other for help solving crimes by sharing data from each nation’s crime database (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 86). By not creating an international crime database, each nation is required to ask other nations for the needed data (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 86). This method allows the shared data to be governed by each nation’s specific data privacy laws, but it lands in an unregulated grey area after the data transfer (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 85). Differences in privacy law become clear when looking at what personal data is collected from people. Some states collect DNA in all criminal cases, others only when the person has been in prison for over two years, and others do not collect DNA at all (Walsch, [[Probable year::2008]], 86). In the context of solving international crime, these differences mean some states tend to be more helpful than others.		The Prüm Convention demonstrates another aspect of inter-European collaboration in crime-solving efforts, leading to interesting implications for data privacy. Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and Spain all signed this treaty, to which other nations can opt-in, in an effort to increase cross-border security (Prüm Convetion, [[Probable year:: 2005]]) . At the roots, it allows the parties to ask each other for help solving crimes by sharing data from each nation’s crime database (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 86). By not creating an international crime database, each nation is required to ask other nations for the needed data (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 86). This method allows the shared data to be governed by each nation’s specific data privacy laws, but it lands in an unregulated grey area after the data transfer (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 85). Differences in privacy law become clear when looking at what personal data is collected from people. Some states collect DNA in all criminal cases, others only when the person has been in prison for over two years, and others do not collect DNA at all (Walsch, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 86). In the context of solving international crime, these differences mean some states tend to be more helpful than others.

	Resources		Resources

	Community Law. (n.d.). Entry powers: When the police can come into your home. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-31-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/		Community Law. (n.d.). Entry powers: When the police can come into your home. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-31-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/
	Electronic Surveillance. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 20, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance		Electronic Surveillance. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 20, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
	European arrest warrant. (n.d.). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en		European arrest warrant. (n.d.). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en
	European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. Nov. 4, [[Probable year::1950]]. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf		European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. Nov. 4, [[Probable year:: 1950]]. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
	European evidence warrant. ([[Probable year::2006]], June 1). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/PRES_06_168		European evidence warrant. ([[Probable year:: 2006]], June 1). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/PRES_06_168
	European evidence warrant, The: The acquisition and admissibility of foreign evidence. (n.d.). Academy of European Law. Retrieved Sept. 20, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=d24[[Probable year::1949]]a e554074b1e14fd12b7f05d3f5d1e38df00162723613600&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=12[[Probable year::1538]]		European evidence warrant, The: The acquisition and admissibility of foreign evidence. (n.d.). Academy of European Law. Retrieved Sept. 20, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=d24[[Probable year:: 1949]]a e554074b1e14fd12b7f05d3f5d1e38df00162723613600&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=12[[Probable year:: 1538]]
	Federal Communications Commission (FCC). ([[Probable year::2019]], Dec. 30). Protecting your privacy: Phone and cable records. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/protecting-your-privacy		Federal Communications Commission (FCC). ([[Probable year:: 2019]], Dec. 30). Protecting your privacy: Phone and cable records. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/protecting-your-privacy
	Lubonja, F. ([[Probable year::2001]]) . Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4097[[Probable year::1449]]		Lubonja, F. ([[Probable year:: 2001]]) . Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4097[[Probable year:: 1449]]
	Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy		Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy
	Prüm Convention. AT-BE-DE-ES-FR-LU-NL. May 27, [[Probable year::2005]]. 10900/05. https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/default/files/docs/body/prumtr.pdf		Prüm Convention. AT-BE-DE-ES-FR-LU-NL. May 27, [[Probable year:: 2005]]. 10900/05. https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/default/files/docs/body/prumtr.pdf
	U.S. Constitution. Amendment IV. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript		U.S. Constitution. Amendment IV. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
	Walsch, C. ([[Probable year::2008]], Nov. 9). Europeanization and democracy: Negotiating the Prum Treaty and the Schengen III Agreement. Politicka Misao, XVL(5), 81-90.		Walsch, C. ([[Probable year:: 2008]], Nov. 9). Europeanization and democracy: Negotiating the Prum Treaty and the Schengen III Agreement. Politicka Misao, XVL(5), 81-90.
	Wolford, B. (n.d.). What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law? GDPR EU. Retrieved Sept. 9, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/		Wolford, B. (n.d.). What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law? GDPR EU. Retrieved Sept. 9, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/


	}}		}}