Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. Legal Principles of Privacy and Data Protection

verfasst von : Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt

Erschienen in: Aviation Security, Privacy, Data Protection and Other Human Rights: Technologies and Legal Principles

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

As discussed in Chap. 4, the states are obliged to ensure the security of civil aviation and have the right to establish security procedures that they believe are necessary. However, this does not mean that security agencies are free to do anything. In addition to the aviation security considerations discussed in Chap. 4, such as threats and risks, costs and benefits, etc., there are other mechanisms to review the operations of aviation security agencies, for the purposes of this research – in the terms of privacy and data protection. The principles of privacy and data protection can serve as such mechanisms.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Civil Aviation Security
Nächstes Kapitel Aviation Security Technologies
Fußnoten
1
Wright et al. (2015) p. 288.
 
2
Cankorel. Cognitive Classification of Legal Principles: A New Approach to International Legal Training. In: Ankara Law Review. Vol. 5 (2008) p. 154.
 
3
Matuzov. The theory of state and law: lectures. (2001) pp. 83–86.
 
4
Raz. Legal principles and the limits of law. In: Yale Law Journal (1972) p. 824 referring to Dworkin. The model of rules. In: The University of Chicago Law Review (1967).
 
5
Dworkin (1967) p. 31.
 
6
Alexander and Kress. Against legal principles. In: Iowa L. Rev. Vol. 82 (1996) p. 739.
 
7
Alexy. On the structure of legal principles. In: Ratio Juris. Vol. 13 (2000) p. 294.
 
8
Ibid. p. 304.
 
9
Black. Regulatory conversations. In: Journal of Law and Society. Vol. 29 (2002) p. 172.
 
10
Raz (1972) p. 848.
 
11
Bygrave (2014) p. 145.
 
12
See DPD Articles 6, 7, 10–12, 16–17, 22–23; OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1980) Paragraph 14; the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (1981).
 
13
Bygrave (2014) p. 145.
 
14
Malt. Sameirettslige Prinsipper In: Selskap, kontrakt, konkurs og rettskilder (2010) p. 183.
 
15
Muñiz. Legal Principles and Legal Theory. In: Ratio Juris. Vol. 10 (1997).
 
16
Petersen. Customary Law without Custom-Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation. In: Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. Vol. 23 (2007). p. 287.
 
17
Perry. Two models of legal principles. In: Iowa L. Rev. Vol. 82 (1996) p. 788.
 
18
Ibid. p. 787.
 
19
Ibid. p. 788.
 
20
Cankorel (2008) p. 156.
 
21
Alexy and Rivers. A theory of constitutional rights (2010) pp. 83–84.
 
22
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice. The Future of Privacy. Joint contribution of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice to the Consultation of the European Commission on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data (2009) p. 6.
 
23
Perry (1996) p. 788.
 
24
Aquilina (2010) p. 140.
 
25
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice (2009) p. 6.
 
26
Raab. Surveillance: Extending the limits of privacy impact assessment In: Privacy impact assessment (2012b) p. 379.
 
27
Cankorel (2008) p. 154.
 
28
Ibid. p. 156.
 
29
See Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. Working Document. Transfers of personal data to third countries: Applying Articles 25 and 26 of the EU data protection directive (1998).
 
30
Voigt. The Role of General Principles in International Law and their Relationship to Treaty Law. In: Retfærd. Vol. 31 (2008). p. 5.
 
31
Kelsen. Principles of international law (1952) p. 19.
 
32
Bordunov (2007) p. 39.
 
33
Wright et al. (2015) p. 290.
 
34
Aquilina (2010) p. 141.
 
35
Norwegian Constitution § 97.
 
37
Bygrave (2001) p. 333.
 
38
Norwegian Constitution § 96.
 
39
RF Federal law of 9 February 2007 N 16-FZ On transport security, Art. 3(1).
 
40
RF Federal law of 28 December 2010 N 390-FZ On security, Art. 2(2).
 
41
RF Federal law of 6 March 2006 N 35-FZ On counteraction against terrorism, Art. 2.
 
43
International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, signed by 258 non-governmental organizations. Final version 10 July 2013. https://​en.​necessaryandprop​ortionate.​org/​text
 
44
Kovaleva (2007) p. 7.
 
45
Mitchener-Nissen [et al.] Public attitudes to airport security: The case of whole body scanners. In: Security Journal (2011).
 
46
Poullet (2009) p. 224.
 
47
Wright et al. (2015) p. 288.
 
48
In the selected states, FOIA were enacted in the USA in 1966, in UK in 2000, in Norway in 2006, in Russia in 2009.
 
50
Title 5 of the US Code, section 552.
 
51
Art.20(4) of Russian Federal law of 9 February 2009 N 8-FZ On providing access to information about the activities of government bodies and local authorities.
 
52
See e.g. Russian Federal law of 21 July 1993 N 5485–1 On state secrets.
 
53
Presidential decree of 6 March 1997 N 188 On approval of the List of confidential information (Russia).
 
54
Federal law of 6 March 2006 N 35-FZ On counteraction against terrorism, Article 2 (10).
 
55
Klass and others v. Germany, No. 5029/71, 6 Sept 1978, §42.
 
56
Ibid. §49.
 
57
Shimovolos v. Russia, No. 30194/09, 21 June 2011.
 
58
Ibid. §69.
 
59
Ibid. §71.
 
60
Khan v. the United Kingdom, No. 35394/97, 12 May 2000, §27.
 
61
Section 18 (b).
 
62
Kruslin v. France, No. 11801/85, 24 April 1990, §27, Kopp v. Switzerland, 13/1997/797/1000, 25 March 1998, §55.
 
63
Khan v. the United Kingdom, No. 35394/97, 12 May 2000, §27.
 
64
C-402/05 P and C-415/05, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, 3 September 2008, §269.
 
65
Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks.
 
66
Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and frequently asked, related questions issued by the US Department of Commerce.
 
67
Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v. Minister for Communications, etc., 8 April 2014, §§69 and 71. For comprehensive analysis of the decision, see Graver and Harborg. Datalagring og menneskerettighetene (2015).
 
68
C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, 6 Oct 2015, § 106.
 
69
See Sect. 2.​3.​3.​3.
 
70
Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, No. 4158/05, 12 Jan 2010, §87.
 
71
Ibid. §76, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, No. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 Dec 2008, §§ 95 and 96.
 
72
Liberty and Others v. United Kingdom, No. 58243/00, 1 July 2008, §69.
 
73
Klass and others v. Germany, No. 5029/71, 6 September 1978.
 
74
See Bing. Rettslige kommunikasjonsprosesser: bidrag til en generell teori (1982) pp. 234–235.
 
75
Malone v. The United Kingdom, No. 8691/79, 2 Aug 1984, §67.
 
76
Leander v. Sweden, No. 9248/81, 26 March 1987, §51.
 
77
The UN Human Rights Committee is the body of independent experts who monitor implementation of the ICCPR by its State parties.
 
79
General Comment 16, issued 23 March 1988 (UN Doc A/43/40, 181–183; UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Add.6; UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev 1, 21–23).
 
80
Huvig v. France, No. 11105/84, 24 April 1990, §34 and Kruslin v. France, No. 11801/85, 24 April 1990, §35, Uzun v. Germany, No. 35623/05, 2 September 2010, §65.
 
81
Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Societies (IRISS) (2013) p. 34.
 
82
Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, No. 4158/05, 12 Jan 2010, §77, Ollson v. Sweden, No. 10465/83, 24 March 1988, §61.
 
83
§7 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data in the context of profiling adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 Nov 2010.
 
84
Schneier (2008) p. 73.
 
85
Ibid. p. 74.
 
86
See Wright et al. (2015) p. 289.
 
87
Aquilina (2010) p. 142.
 
88
International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, signed by 258 non-governmental organizations. Final version 10 July 2013. https://​en.​necessaryandprop​ortionate.​org/​text
 
89
Kilkelly (2001) p. 30.
 
90
Ibid.
 
91
Gutwirth [et al.] Deliverable D1: legal, social, economic and ethical conceptualisations of privacy and data protection (2011) p. 27.
 
93
See, e.g. ICAO PNR Guidelines, §2.12.
 
94
Posner and Vermeule (2007) p. 32. See also Vermeule. Security and Liberty: Critiques of the Tradeoff Thesis. In: Harvard Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Series (2011).
 
95
Ibid. pp. 26–27.
 
99
Waldron (2003) p. 192.
 
100
Soering v. the United Kingdom, No. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, §89.
 
101
Kilkelly (2001) p. 31.
 
102
RF Federal law of 9 February 2007 N 16-FZ On transport security, Art. 3(2).
 
103
Waldron (2003) p. 192 citing Kristoff. Liberal reality check: we must look anew at freedom vs. security. In: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (2002) p. A9.
 
104
Ibid.
 
105
Scheinin and Vermeulen (2011) p. 49.
 
106
Amicelli (2012a) p. 13.
 
107
Ibid.
 
108
Cali. Balancing Human Rights? Methodological Problems with Weights, Scales and Proportions. In: Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 29 (2007) p. 253.
 
109
Malone v. The United Kingdom, No. 8691/79, 2 Aug 1984, §82.
 
110
Scheinin. Terrorism and the “Pull” of Balancing in the name of security In: Law and Security: facing the dilemmas (2009) p. 57.
 
111
Spencer (2002) p. 519.
 
112
Amicelli (2012a) p. 13.
 
113
Ibid.
 
114
Pillar. The Price of Aviation Security. The National Interest. 22 November 2010. http://​nationalinterest​.​org/​node/​4463
 
115
Pillar (2010).
 
116
Amicelli (2012a) p. 14.
 
117
Franklin. Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). Available also in: Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759? John Bartlett (1820–1905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.
 
118
Schneier (2008) p. 9.
 
119
Ibid. p. 69.
 
120
Vermeule (2011) p. 26.
 
121
Schneier (2008) p. 70.
 
122
Solove (2011) p. 3.
 
123
Raab. Privacy as a Security Value. In: Jon Bing: En Hyllest/A Tribute (2014) p. 58.
 
124
Engle. The History of the General Principle of Proportionality: An Overview (7 July 2009). In: Dartmouth Law Journal, Vol. X-1 (2012) p. 3.
 
125
Ibid.
 
126
E.g. it applies under public international law, private international law, public and private domestic law. With applicability to the EU institutions, the principle of proportionality is laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty on EU.
 
127
Wright et al. (2015) p. 288.
 
128
Cankorel (2008) p. 180.
 
129
Gutwirth et al. (2011) p. 27.
 
130
Information Commissioner’s Office (2014) and Lyon (2004) p. 142.
 
131
European Data Protection Supervisor. Opinion on the Communication from the Commission on the global approach to transfers of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to third countries (2010).
 
132
Colvin. The Human Rights Act and CCTV, CCTV User Group, 12 October 2007, https://​www.​cctvusergroup.​com/​art.​php?​art=​39
 
133
Gutwirth et al. (2011) p. 27.
 
134
Walker (2006).
 
135
Gallagher (2002) p. 288.
 
136
Scheinin and Vermeulen (2011) p. 50.
 
137
Gutwirth et al. (2011) p. 28.
 
138
Ibid. p. 26.
 
139
C-465/00, Rechnungshof decision, 20 May 2003, § 91.
 
140
See, for example, Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, 9 Nov 2010.
 
141
Wright et al. (2015) p. 288.
 
142
Fordham and De La Mare. Identifying the Principles of Proportionality. In: Understanding Human Rights Principles, London: Justice and Hart Publishing (2001).
 
143
Spielmann. Allowing the Right Margin the European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? In: Centre for European Legal Studies, Working Paper Series (2012) p. 22.
 
144
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014a).
 
145
Case C-524/06, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 16 December 2008, § 66.
 
146
Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, 9 Nov 2010, §§ 81 and 86.
 
147
Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union, 11 Sept 2002, §12.
 
148
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014a).
 
149
Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union, §12.
 
150
Fordham and De La Mare (2001).
 
151
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014a).
 
152
See, e.g. Klass and others v. Germany, No. 5029/71, 6 Sept 1978, §50, Malone v. the United Kingdom, §§66–68, Liberty and other organisations v. the United Kingdom, No. 58234/00, 1 July 2008, §§93–94.
 
153
Kilkelly (2001) p. 32 and Aquilina (2010) p. 14.
 
154
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014a).
 
155
Kilkelly (2001) p. 32.
 
156
Yourow. The margin of appreciation doctrine in the dynamics of European human rights jurisprudence (1996) p. 13.
 
157
Case “Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” v. Belgium, No 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, 23 July 1968, §5. See also e.g. Lingens v. Austria, No. 9815/82, 8 July 1986, §39.
 
158
Spielmann (2012) p. 2.
 
159
Ibid. pp. 14, 16. For example, in Leader v. Sweden, the court did not find violation of Article 8 because the applicant was regarded as a national security risk. Leander v. Sweden, No. 9248/81, 26 March 1987, §59.
 
160
Gutwirth et al. (2011) p. 26.
 
161
Lester. The European Court of Human Rights after 50 years. In: European Human Rights Law Review. Vol. 4 (2009). p. 474, Spielmann (2012) p. 28.
 
162
Arai-Takahashi. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (2002) p. 14.
 
163
Gutwirth et al. (2011) p. 27.
 
164
Cali (2007) p. 270.
 
165
Case C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, 6 Oct 2015, § 106.
 
166
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. V. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, 13 May 2014, §§ 63 and 3.
 
167
Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM), 24 November 2011, § 53.
 
168
Wright et al. (2015) p. 288.
 
169
Ibid.
 
170
As in the case of body scanners in Norway, which testing was cancelled due to privacy concerns in 2007. However, in 2015, framework contracts for scanners were concluded, see Chap. 6.
 
171
Bygrave (2014) p. 145.
 
172
Information Commissioner’s Office. The Eight Data Protection Principles. http://​www.​belb.​org.​uk/​downloads/​foi_​data_​principles.​pdf
 
173
Bygrave (2014) p. 146.
 
174
See Dempsey and Flint. Commercial data and national security. In: Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Vol. 72 (2004) p. 1489.
 
175
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2000).
 
176
Dempsey and Flint (2004) p. 1489.
 
177
Ibid. p. 1495.
 
178
Greenleaf. Five years of the APEC Privacy Framework: Failure or promise? In: Computer Law & Security Report. Vol. 25 (2009). p. 32.
 
179
Bygrave (2014).
 
181
Department of Homeland Security. Privacy Impact Assessment Update for TSA Advanced Imaging Technology, 18 December 2015, p.3.
 
182
The principle of accountability is often argued to be a separate data privacy principle. Nevertheless, I consider it as an important emerging principle and will discuss it towards the end of this work in Chap. 8. The same applies to a more general transparency principle as indicated in Sect. 5.3.1.2 (broader than the one I discuss above within the principle of legality – legal transparency - and data subjects’ right to be informed about data processing, see below).
 
183
See, e.g. § 6 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data in the context of profiling adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 Nov 2010, GDPR Art.23 and Recital 73.
 
184
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2004).
 
185
Wright [et al.] Sorting out smart surveillance. In: Computer Law & Security Review. Vol. 26 (2010) p. 349.
 
186
Ibid.
 
187
See, e.g. Norwegian Personal Data Act of 2000, §11.
 
188
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014a).
 
189
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation, Brussels, 2 April 2013 (2013a), p. 21.
 
190
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2013a), p. 21.
 
191
For more detail, see Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2013a), pp. 23–27.
 
192
Aquilina (2010) p. 142.
 
193
§2.12.
 
194
Bygrave (2014) pp. 151–152.
 
196
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2004).
 
197
Gilbert. Dilemmas of privacy and surveillance: chaljenges of technological change (2007) p. 26.
 
198
Schartum. Rettslige aspekter ved feltteknologi i arbeidslivet (2013) p. 73.
 
199
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party Opinion 3/2012 on developments in biometric technologies (2012b).
 
200
European Committee on Legal Co-operation (2003).
 
202
See S and Marper v. the United Kingdom, No. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 Dec 2008.
 
203
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014a).
 
204
Ibid.
 
205
Ibid.
 
206
Ibid.
 
207
See further Bygrave (2014) pp. 163–164.
 
208
Bygrave (2014) p. 163.
 
209
The United Nations General Assembly Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files.
 
210
Art. 17(1) of DPD, Art. 11 of OECD Privacy Framework 2013.
 
212
Esayas (2015) p. 16.
 
213
Chernova (2013).
 
214
Resolution of Government of 1 November 2012 N 1119 On approval of requirements for the protection of personal data during their processing in information systems of personal data.
 
215
Modern Telecommunications Russia. The Council of Federation adopted Personal Data Law, 21 July 2011. http://​www.​telecomru.​ru/​article/​?​id=​6067
 
216
Further see Bygrave (2014) pp. 158–163.
 
218
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2004).
 
219
Bygrave (2014) p. 160.
 
220
Ibid.
 
221
Ibid.
 
222
Gutwirth et al. (2011) p. 27.
 
223
Gilbert (2007) p. 33.
 
224
Aquilina (2010) p. 142.
 
Literatur
Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, C(2000) 2441.
Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks.
Privacy Act 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2000).
Federal law of 21 July 1993 N 5485-1 On state secrets.
Federal law of 6 March 2006 N 35-FZ On counteraction against terrorism.
Federal law of 9 February 2007 N 16-FZ On transport security.
Federal law of 9 February 2009 N 8-FZ On providing access to information about the activities of government bodies and local authorities.
Federal law of 28 December 2010 N 390-FZ On security.
Presidential decree of 6 March 1997 N 188 On approval of the List of confidential information.
Resolution of Government of 1 November 2012 N 1119 On approval of requirements for the protection of personal data during their processing in information systems of personal data.
Amicelli, Anthony. “Report on Theoretical Frameworks and Previous Empirical Research. Deliverable D1.1 of the EU FP7 project “PACT” (2012a).
Aquilina, Kevin. “Public security versus privacy in technology law: A balancing act?” Computer Law & Security Review 26 (2010): 130–43.CrossRef
Bordunov, V.D. International Air Law. Moscow, 2007.
Bygrave, Lee A. and Ann Helen Aarø. “Privacy, Personality and Publicity – An Overview of Norwegian Law.” In: International privacy, publicity and personality laws edited by M. Henry. London, 2001: 333–46.
Bygrave, Lee A. Data privacy law: an international perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRef
Cali, Basak. “Balancing Human Rights? Methodological Problems with Weights, Scales and Proportions.” Human Rights Quarterly 29 (2007): 251.CrossRef
Cankorel, Turgut. “Cognitive Classification of Legal Principles: A New Approach to International Legal Training”. Ankara Law Review 5 (2008).
Dempsey, James X. and Lara M. Flint. “Commercial data and national security.” Geo. Wash. L. Rev 72 (2004): 1459–1502.
Dworkin, Ronald. “The model of rules”. The University of Chicago Law Review (1967): 14–46.
Esayas, Samson. “The role of anonymisation and pseudonymisation under the EU data privacy rules: beyond the ‘all or nothing’ approach”. European Journal of Information Technology and Law 6 (2015).
Gilbert, Nigel. “Dilemmas of privacy and surveillance: challenges of technological change”. Criminal Justice Matters. Vol. 68, Issue 1 (2007): 41–42.CrossRef
Griffiths, Siriol. “Stress response: a physiological analysis”. Aviation Security International 17 (2011).
Gutwirth, Serge et al. “Legal, Social, Economic and Ethical Conceptualisations of Privacy and Data Protection. Deliverable 1, The Prescient Project”. (2011).
Kilkelly, Ursula. “The right to respect for private and family life”. In: Human Rights Handbook, Council of Europe, 2001.
Kovaleva, Natalia. Informational Law of Russia. Moscow: Dashkov and K., 2007.
Lyon, David. “Globalizing Surveillance Comparative and Sociological Perspectives”. International Sociology 19 (2004): 135–49.CrossRef
Perry, Stephen. “Two models of legal principles”. Iowa L. Rev 82 (1996): 787.
Posner, Eric A. and Adrian Vermeule. Terror in the balance: security, liberty, and the courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
Poullet, Yves. “Data protection legislation: What is at stake for our society and democracy?” Computer Law & Security Review 25.3 (2009): 211–226.CrossRef
Raz, Joseph. “Legal principles and the limits of law”. Yale Law Journal (1972): 823–54.
Scheinin, Martin and Mathias Vermeulen. “Unilateral Exceptions to International Law: Systematic legal analysis and critique of doctrines to deny or reduce the applicability of Human Rights norms in the fight against terrorism”. Essex Human Rights Review 8 (2011): 20–56.
Schneier, Bruce. Schneier on security. Indianapolis, Indiana, 2008.
Solove, Daniel. Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. Yale University Press, 2011.
Spencer, Shaun. “Security Versus Privacy: Reframing the Debate”. Denver University Law Review 79 (2002): 519.
Spielmann, Dean. “Allowing the Right Margin the European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review?” Centre for European Legal Studies, Working Paper Series (2012).
Vermeule, Adrian. “Security and Liberty: Critiques of the Tradeoff Thesis”. Harvard Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Series (2011).
Waldron, Jeremy. “Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance”. Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (2003): 191–210CrossRef
Walker, Clive. “Clamping down on terrorism in the United Kingdom”. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006): 1137–51.CrossRef
Wright, David et al. “Questioning surveillance”. Computer Law & Security Review 31 (2015): 280–92.CrossRef
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2004) Opinion 4/2004 on the processing of personal data by means of video surveillance, 11750/02/EN, WP 89, Brussels, 11 Feb 2004
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice (2009) The Future of Privacy. Joint contribution of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice to the Consultation of the European Commission on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data, 02356/09/EN, WP 168, 1 Dec 2009
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2013a) Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation, 00569/13/EN, WP 203, Brussels, 2 April 2013
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014a) Opinion 01/2014 on the application of necessity and proportionality concepts and data protection within the law enforcement sector, 536/14/EN, WP 21, Brussels, 27 Feb 2014
European Committee on Legal Co-operation (2003) European Committee on Legal Co-operation, Council of Europe. Report containing guiding principles for the protection of individuals with regard to the collection and processing of data by means of video surveillance, May 2003.
Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Societies (IRISS) (2013). Deliverable D2.3: The Legal Perspective, 2013.
Information Commissioner’s Office (2014) In the picture: A data protection code of practice for surveillance cameras and personal information. 2014.
Metadaten
Titel
Legal Principles of Privacy and Data Protection
verfasst von
Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt
Copyright-Jahr
2017
Buch
Aviation Security, Privacy, Data Protection and Other Human Rights: Technologies and Legal Principles

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58138-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-58139-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58139-2_5