Everything that people do within the internet leaves behind some digital fingerprints. This means that it is logical that most users of the internet worry a lot about the matter of privacy. Because laws of privacy are different from one country to another, a company may not be obligated legally to make sure that personal data processing will conform to the requirements of the law from the nations with which individuals whose data were collected come from. A good example is that where a company has been incorporated within a nation that is offshore, this company could not be under obligation to adhere to whatever data protection laws.
[...] The findings of the court were that passenger information, even though gathered as part for commercial enterprise, happens to be exempt from the directive due to its use within international defense (Jean and JuriP. 18). Conclusion Under the law of the European Union, collection for personal data may only be done under strict conditions as well as for purposes that are legitimate. The key component for the EU law for data protection happens to be the Data protection Directive 1995/46/ EC. On the other hand, the United States does not have an all-encompassing law that regulates personal data collection as well as processing. [...]
[...] Proposed measures for encountering such breach needs to accompany the notifications. In respect to cookies, the directive states that cookies may only be installed on a subscriber's device after the subscriber's explicit consent. It is noteworthy that a subscribers consent should be attained after the subscriber has been provided with information that the e-privacy directive requires as well as after being offered the right of refusal to such access. With regard to spam, e-privacy directive makes it clear that remedies of infringements for provisions on communications that are unsolicited may be obtained through legal proceedings (INFOSEC INSTITUTE). [...]
[...] Probably, these different data protection approaches for the US as well as the EU stem from history. Within Europe, where individuals have experienced dictatorships, protection of data was declared as a right for humans and regulated trough a comprehensive legislation for data protection. With regard to this, it happens to be of significance mentioning that the German Democratic Republic's Official State Security Service employed five hundred thousand secret informers. Among these secret informers, ten thousand were tasked with listening to as well as transcribing citizens' phone calls. [...]
[...] Generally, it identifies the persons who are allowed to access health information. Mostly, this kind of information is utilized by heal practitioners as the use it for the purposes of treatment as well as care coordination. The kind of information subject to protection include notes from medical providers as well as their records, computer recorders for health insurers, medics conversations about the patient's treatment and care, and the billing information too (INFOSEC INSTITUTE). FACTA (Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act) FACTA assists in the protection of credit information for customers from risks that are in relation to data theft. [...]
[...] Such decisions did not address directly the substantial conflicts, which could exist between policies of whistleblower and the privacy directive of the EU. Under this directive, persons have a right to know the kind of personal data that has been collected about them. The Sarbanes Oxley law does not prohibit such notification, however, there is a possibility that such notification to persons (especially wrongdoers) may hinder with investigations through the increment of a chances for cover up (Bob). Another problem is raised by anonymous ethics hotlines. This is due the fact the many of these transmit information to the US headquarters. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
