Book contents
- Half title page
- Title page
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Book part
- Glossary
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes
- Introduction
- Part I The social dimensions of privacy
- Part II Privacy: practical controversies
- Part III Issues in privacy regulation
- 12 The social value of privacy, the value of privacy to society and human rights discourse
- 13 Privacy, sociality and the failure of regulation: lessons learned from young Canadians’ online experiences
- 14 Compliance-limited health privacy laws
- 15 Respect for context as a benchmark for privacy online: what it is and isn’t
- 16 Privacy, technology, and regulation: why one size is unlikely to fit all
- 17 The value of privacy federalism
- Index
- References
17 - The value of privacy federalism
from Part III - Issues in privacy regulation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2015
Book contents
- Half title page
- Title page
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Book part
- Glossary
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes
- Introduction
- Part I The social dimensions of privacy
- Part II Privacy: practical controversies
- Part III Issues in privacy regulation
- 12 The social value of privacy, the value of privacy to society and human rights discourse
- 13 Privacy, sociality and the failure of regulation: lessons learned from young Canadians’ online experiences
- 14 Compliance-limited health privacy laws
- 15 Respect for context as a benchmark for privacy online: what it is and isn’t
- 16 Privacy, technology, and regulation: why one size is unlikely to fit all
- 17 The value of privacy federalism
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social Dimensions of PrivacyInterdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 324 - 346Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Bulman-Pozen, J. 2014. “From sovereignty and process to administration and politics,” Yale Law Journal 123: 1920–56.Google Scholar
Bundesrat Drucksachen [BR] 52/1/12 (Germany).Google Scholar
COM 2012. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation), final, January 25, 2012.Google Scholar
CNIL (Commission Nationale de l’informatique et des Libertés) 2012. Projet de règlement européen: la défense de la vie privée s’éloigne du citoyen [Proposed European Regulation: Defense of Private Life Moves Away from Citizens], January 26, 2012.Google Scholar
Dix, A. 2012. “Datenschutzaufsicht im Bundesstaat – ein Vorbild für Europa,” [Data Protection Oversight in the Federal State – A Model for Europe] Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 36: 318–21.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. A. and Greve, M. S. 2007. “Introduction: Preemption in Context,” in Epstein, R. A. and Greve, M. S. (eds.) Federal Preemption: States’ Powers, National Interests. Washington DC: AEI Press, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
European Commission 2012. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).Google Scholar
Executive Office of the President 2014. Big Data, Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values. Washington DC.Google Scholar
Federal Trade Commission 2001. North Dakota Privacy Law is Not Preempted, 2001 WL 729771.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. and Rubin, E. 2008. Federalism: Political Identity and Tragic Compromise. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Finch, K. 2013. “Straight From the Pacific Ocean: A Tidal Wave of California Privacy Laws,” The Privacy Advisor, November 6, 2013.Google Scholar
Härting, N. 2012. “Starke Behörden, schwaches Recht –der neue EU-Datenschutzentwurf,” [Strong Authorities, Weak Law – the new EU Data Protection Draft] Betriebs-Berater 8: 459–66.Google Scholar
Janger, E. J. and Schwartz, P. M. 2002. “The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, information privacy, and the limits of default rules,” Minnesota Law Review 86: 1219–61.Google Scholar
Kuner, C. 2012. “The European Commission’s Proposed Data Protection Regulation: a Copernican revolution in European data protection law,” Privacy & Security Law Report 11: 215–30.Google Scholar
Masing, J. 2011 “Ein Abschied von den Grundrechten,” [A Farewell to Fundamental Rights] Sueddeutsche Zeitung, January 9, p. 10.Google Scholar
Masing, J. 2012. “Herausforderungen des Datenschutzes,” [Challenges for Data Protection] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift: 2305–11.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, n.d. State Security Breach Notification Laws.Google Scholar
Note from Gen. Secretariat to Working Grp. on Info. Exch. & Data Prot. 2012. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation) (July 18, 2012).Google Scholar
Piris, J.-C. 2010. The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Press Unit, European Court of Human Rights 2014. Factsheet: Data Protection (September 2014).Google Scholar
Privacy Protection Study Commission 1977. Personal Privacy in an Information Society. Washington DC.Google Scholar
Roßnagel, A. 2012. “Editorial: Datenschutzgesetzgebung: Monopol oder Vielfalt?,” [Data Protection Legislation: Monopoly or Diversity?] Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 36: 553–5.Google Scholar
Ronellenfitsch, M. 2012. “Fortentwicklung des Datenschutzes: Die Pläne der Europäischen Kommission,” [Further Development of Data Protection: The Plans of the European Commission] Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 36: 561–3.Google Scholar
Schild, H.-H. and Tinnefeld, M.-T. 2012. “Datenschutz in der Union – gelungene oder missglückte Gesetzentwürfe?” [Data Protection in the Union: Successful or Unsuccessful Bill?] Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 36: 312–17.Google Scholar
Schwartz, P. M. and Janger, E. J. 2007. “Notification of data security breaches,” Michigan Law Review 105: 913–84.Google Scholar
Sengupta, S. 2013. “No U.S. Action, So States Move on Privacy Law,” The New York Times, October 30.Google Scholar
Simitis, S. 1997. “Einleitung in die EG-Datenschutzrichtlinie” in Dammann, U. and Simitis, S. (eds.) EG Datenschutzrichtlinie – Kommentar. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Solove, D. J. and Hartzog, W. 2014. “The FTC And The New Common Law Of Privacy,” Columbia Law Review 114: 583–676.Google Scholar
Solove, D. J. and Schwartz, P. M. (eds.) 2009. Information Privacy Law, Third Edition. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
State of California, Office of the Attorney General 2014. Privacy Legislation Pending in 2014.Google Scholar
von Lewinski, K. 2012. “Europäisierung des Datenschutzrechts, Umsetzungsspielraum des deutschen Gesetzgebers und Entscheidungskompetenz des BVerfG,” Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 8: 564–70.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by