Element contents
Data Rights in Transition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 August 2025
Summary
Data Rights in Transition maps the development of data rights that formed and reformed in response to the socio-technical transformations of the postwar twentieth century. The authors situate these rights, with their early pragmatic emphasis on fair information processing, as different from and less symbolically powerful than utopian human rights of older centuries. They argue that, if an essential role of human rights is 'to capture the world's imagination', the next generation of data rights needs to come closer to realising that vision – even while maintaining their pragmatic focus on effectiveness. After a brief introduction, the sections that follow focus on socio-technical transformations, emergence of the right to data protection, and new and emerging rights such as the right to be forgotten and the right not to be subject to automated decision-making, along with new mechanisms of governance and enforcement.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009613545Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 04 September 2025
References
Ackerman, M. S. & Mainwaring, S. D. (2005). Privacy Issues and Human–Computer Interaction. In Cranor L. F. & Garfinkel S., eds., Security and Usability: Designing Secure Systems that People Can Use. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, pp. 381–400.Google Scholar
ASIS (1978). Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science (ASIS): The Information Age in Perspective, New York, 13–17 November.Google Scholar
Asimov, I. (1956). The Last Question. Science Fiction Quarterly, November, 1–15. Reproduced in Asimov, I. (1986). Robot Dreams. New York: Berkley Books, 234–246.Google Scholar
Atten, M. (2013). What Databases Do to Privacy: The Emergence of a Public Issue in 1960s America. Réseaux, 178–179(2), 21–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausloos, J. & Dewitte, P. (2018). Shattering One-Way Mirrors: Data Subject Access Rights in Practice. International Data Privacy Law, 8, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausloos, J., Mahieu, R. & Veale, M. (2019). Getting Data Subject Rights Right. JIPITEC – Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 10, 283–309.Google Scholar
Auxier, B. (2020). Most Americans Support Right to Have some Personal Info Removed from Online Searches. Pew Research Center, January 27. https://shorturl.at/UcJGW.Google Scholar
Ayres, I. & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. (2010). The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights from its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. & La Padula, L. J. (1976). Secure Computer System: Unified Exposition and Multics Interpretation, Report ESD-TR-75–306. Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA. https://shorturl.at/L7Odg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellman, R. E. (1964). Science, Technology and the Automation Explosion. Paper delivered at the first Annual Conference on the Cybercultural Revolution–Cybernetics and Automation, New York, June 19–21. www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2007/P2908.pdf.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by its Inventor. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (2021). App nos. 58170/13, 62322/14, 24960/15; Grand Chamber Judgment, ECHR, 25 May 2021; (2022) 74 EHRR 17.Google Scholar
Bosua, R., Clark, K., Richardson, M. & Webb, J. (2019). Intelligent Warning Systems: ‘Technological Nudges’ to Enhance User Control of IoT Data Collection, Storage and Use. In Daly, A., Devitt, S. K. & Mann, M., eds., Good Data. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
Bosua, R., Clifford, D. & Richardson, M. (2023). Contact-Tracing Technologies and the Problem of Trust: Framing a Right of Social Dialogue for an Impact Assessment Process in Pandemic Times. Law, Technology & Humans, 5, 193–204.Google Scholar
Brandeis, L. D. (1934). The Curse of Bigness: Miscellaneous Papers of Louis D. Brandeis, ed. Fraenkel, O. K. & Lewis, C.M. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Brooker, K. (2018). ‘I Was Devastated’: Tim Berners-Lee, the Man Who Created the World Wide Web Has Some Regrets. Vanity Fair Magazine, 1 July 2018. www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/the-man-who-created-the-world-wide-web-has-some-regrets.Google Scholar
Bygrave, L. A. (2002). Data Protection: Approaching its Rationale, Logic and Limits. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Bygrave, L. A. (2014). Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygrave, L. (2020). Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default. In Kuner, C., Bygrave, L. A., Docksey, C. & Dreschler, L., eds., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, F. (1990). ASIO and the Australian Labour Movement: An Historical Perspective. Labour History, 58, 1–16.Google Scholar
Celermajer, D. & Lefebvre, A. (2020). Introduction: Bringing the Subject of Human Rights into Focus. In Celermajer, D. & Lefebvre, A., eds., The Subject of Human Rights. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Census Act Case, 65 BVerfGE 1 (1983). In Kommers, D. & Miller, R. A. (2012). The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 3rd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 408–411.Google Scholar
Cerf, V. (1993). How the Internet Came to Be. www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/cerf-how-inet.html.Google Scholar
Chadd, K. (2020). The History of Cybercrime and Cybersecurity, 1940–2020, Cybercrime Magazine, 30 November. https://shorturl.at/QypkQ.Google Scholar
Chander, A., Kaminski, M. E., & McGeveran, W. (2021). Catalyzing Privacy Law, Minnesota Law Review, 105, 1733–1802.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, H. (2021). The Travels of Human Rights: The UNESCO Human Rights Exhibition 1950–1953. In Chalmers, S. & Pahuja, S., eds., Routledge Handbook of International Law and the Humanities. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 173–190.Google Scholar
Cherdantseva, Y. & Hilton, J. (2013). A Reference Model of Information Assurance & Security. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Regensburg, 2–6 September. pp. 546-555.Google Scholar
Citron, D. K. (2022). The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
Clark, D. D. & Wilson, D. R. (1987). A Comparison of Commercial and Military Computer Security Policies. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, 27–29 April.Google Scholar
Clifford, D. (2024). Data Protection Law and Emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, D. & Ausloos, J. (2018). Data Protection and the Role of Fairness, Yearbook of European Law, 37, 130–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, D., Goldenfein, J., Jiménez, A. & Richardson, M. (2023). A Right of Social Dialogue on Automated Decision-Making: From Workers’ Right to Autonomous Right. Technology & Regulation, doi.org/10.26116/techreg.2023.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, D., Richardson, M. & Witzleb, N. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and Sensitive Inferences: New Challenges for Data Protection Law. In Findlay, M., Ford, J., Seah, J. & Thampapillai, D., eds., Regulatory Insights on Artificial Intelligence: Research for Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, New Series, 4, 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1959). The Federal Communications Commission. Journal of Law & Economics, 2, 1–40.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law & Economics, 3, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (2019). Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. E. (2021). How (Not) to Write a Privacy Law. Knight First Amendment Institute, 23 March. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/how-not-to-write-a-privacy-law.Google Scholar
Cohen-Eliya, M. & Porat, I. (2010). American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomina, B. (1994). Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Copland v. United Kingdom (2007). ECHR 253.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1950). European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 (ETS 5, 4 November).Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1981). Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS 108, 28 January).Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2018). Protocol Amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (CETS 223, 10 October).Google Scholar
Cowen, Z. (1969). The Private Man. The Boyer Lectures 1969. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
Dalla Corte, L. (2020). A Right to a Rule. In Hallinan, D., Leenes, R., Gutwirth, S. & De Hert, P., eds., Data Protection and Privacy: Data Protection and Democracy. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 27–58.Google Scholar
De Búrca, G. (2001). The Drafting of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. European Law Review, 26, 126–138.Google Scholar
De Hert, P. (2023). Post-GDPR Lawmaking in the Digital Data Society: Mimesis without Integration. Topological Understandings of Twisted Boundary Setting in EU Data Protection Law. In Curtin, D. & Catanzariti, M., eds., Data at the Boundaries of European Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Hert, P. & Gutwirth, S. (2009). Data Protection in the Case Law of Strasbourg and Luxemburg: Constitutionalisation in Action. In Gutwirth, S., Poullet, Y., De Hert, P., Terwangne, C. & Nouwt, S., eds., Reinventing Data Protection? Dordrecht: Springer Science, pp. 3–44.Google Scholar
Dembour, M.-B. (2010). What are Human Rights? Four Schools of Thought. Human Rights Quarterly, 32, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diggelmann, O. & Cleis, M. N. (2014). How the Right to Privacy Became a Human Right. Human Rights Law Review, 14, 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Digital Rights Ireland (2014): Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others. CJEU, Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12. ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, 8 April.Google Scholar
Doing, S. (2010). Appropriating American Technology in the 1960s: Cold War Politics and the GDR Computer Industry. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 32(2), 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, K. (2012). From Punched Cards to ‘Big Data’: A Social History of Database Populism. Futures of Communication, 1(1), Article 4.Google Scholar
Board, Editorial, Minnesota Law Review (1972). The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Minnesota Law Review, 56, 819–841.Google Scholar
European Data Protection Board (2023). 1.2 Billion Euro Fine for Facebook as a Result of EDPB Binding Decision. https://shorturl.at/p5WNd.Google Scholar
European Union (1995). Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, OJ L 281, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar
European Union (2000, 2007). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2000 OJ C364, 18 December; 2007/C 303/01, 14 December; 2010 OJ (C83) 389, 30 March.Google Scholar
European Union (2007). Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Official Journal C 306, 13 December.Google Scholar
European Union (2008). Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union [2008], OJ C115/13.Google Scholar
European Union (2016). Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), 27 April.Google Scholar
European Union (2023). Regulation 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services and Amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), 19 October.Google Scholar
European Union (2024a). European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Laying down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts (COM(2021)0206 – C9-0146/2021 – 2021/0106(COD)), 13 March.Google Scholar
European Union (2024b). Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on Improving Working Conditions in Platform Work, OJ L, 2024/2831.Google Scholar
Ewing, K. D., Mahoney, J. & Moretta, A. (2020). MI5, the Cold War, and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Republic of Germany (1949). Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, 23 May.Google Scholar
Federal Republic of Germany (1977). Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz:), 27 January.Google Scholar
France (1978). Act 78–17 on Information Technology, Data Files and Individual Liberties (Loi relative à l’informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés), 6 January.Google Scholar
Frohman, L. (2012). ‘Only Sheep Let Themselves Be Counted’. Privacy, Political Culture, and the 1983/87 West German Census Boycotts. Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 52, 335–378.Google Scholar
Frohman, L. (2015). Population Registration, Social Planning, and the Discourse on Privacy Protection in West Germany. Journal of Modern History, 87, 316–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gajda, A. (2008). What if Samuel D. Warren Hadn’t Married a Senator’s Daughter? Uncovering the Press Coverage that Led to ‘The Right to Privacy’. Michigan State Law Review, 2008(1), 35–60.Google Scholar
Gillies, J. & Cailliau, R. (2000). How the Web was Born: The Story of the World Wide Web. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Fuster, G. (2014). The Emergence of Personal Data Protection as a Fundamental Right of the EU. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Fuster, G. (2015). Curtailing a Right in Flux: Restrictions of the Right to Personal Data Protection. In Rallo Lombarte, A. & García Mahamut, R., eds., Hacia un nuevo régimen europeo de protección de datos. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, pp. 513–537.Google Scholar
González Fuster, G. & Gellert, R. (2012). The Fundamental Right of Data Protection in the European Union: In Search of an Uncharted Right. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 26, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Google (2019): Google LLC v. Commission Nationale de L’informatique et des Libertés (CNIL). Case C-507/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:772, 24 September.Google Scholar
Google Spain (2014): Google Spain SL & Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Proteccción de Datos (AEPD) & Mario Costeja González. Case C-131/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, 13 May.Google Scholar
Gorichanaz, T. & Venkatagiri, S. (2021). The expanding circles of information behavior and human–computer interaction. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(3), 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granmar, C. (2021). A Reality Check of the Schrems Saga. Nordic Journal of European Law, 4, 48–67.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2010). The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights’. Metaphilosophy, 41, 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, T. (2001). Inventing Information Systems: The Systems Men and the Computer, 1950–1968. Business History Review, 75, 15–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, M. G. (2017). Dark Territory in the Information Age: Learning from the West German Census Controversies of the 1980s. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauben, M. (2007). Behind the Net: The Untold History of the ARPANET and Computer Science. In Netizens: An Anthology, ch. 7. www.columbia.edu/~rh120.Google Scholar
Hendrix, J. & Lima-Strong, C. (2025). US House Passes 10-Year Moratorium on State AI Laws. Tech Policy Press, 23 May. www.techpolicy.press/us-house-passes-10year-moratorium-on-state-ai-laws.Google Scholar
Hilton, A. M. (1966). Foreword. In Hilton, A. M., ed., The Evolving Society: The Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of the Cybercultural Revolution – Cybernetics and Automation. New York: Institute for Cybercultural Research. pp. x–xiv.Google Scholar
Hondius, F. W. (1975). Emerging Data Protection in Europe. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hoofnagle, C. J. & Urban, J. M. (2014). Alan Westin’s Privacy Homo Economicus. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 261–317.Google Scholar
Hornung, G. & Schnabel, C. (2009). Data Protection in Germany I: The Population Census Decision and the Right to Informational Self-Determination. Computer Law & Security Review, 25, 84–88,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism, A New Name for some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longmans, Green & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, M. E. and Urban, J. M. (2021). The Right to Contest AI. Columbia Law Review, 121, 1957–2047.Google Scholar
Kaminski, M. E. (2022). The Case for Data Privacy Rights (or ’Please, a Little Optimism’). Notre Dame Law Review, 97, 385–399.Google Scholar
Karas, S. (2002a). Privacy, Identify, Databases. American University Law Review, 52, 2(1), 393–445.Google Scholar
Karas, S. (2002b). Enhancing the Privacy Discourse: Consumer Information Gathering as Surveillance. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 7, 29–63.Google Scholar
Kassam, A. (2014). Spain’s Everyday Internet Warrior who Cut Free from Google’s Tentacles. The Guardian, 13 May.Google Scholar
Kempner, R. M. W. (1946). The German National Registration System as Means of Police Control of Population, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 36, 362–387.Google ScholarPubMed
King, D. B. & Batt, M. A. (1961). Wire Tapping and Electronic Surveillance: A Neglected Constitutional Consideration. Dickinson Law Review, 66, 17–38.Google Scholar
Kirby, M. (1983). Reform the Law: Essays on the Renewal of the Australian Legal System. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, M. (2011). The History, Achievement and Future of the 1980 OECD Guidelines on Privacy. International Data Privacy Law, 6, 1–14.Google Scholar
Kokott, J. & Sobotta, C. (2013). The Distinction between Privacy and Data Protection in the Jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR. International Data Privacy Law, 3, 222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kommers, D. & Miller, R. A. (2012). The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 3rd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Kukutai, T. (2023). Indigenous Data Sovereignty – A New Take on an Old Theme. Science, 382, doi.org/10.1126/science.adl4664.Google Scholar
Kukutai, T., Carroll, S. R. & Walter, M. (2020). Indigenous Data Sovereignty. In Mamo, D., ed., The Indigenous World, 34th ed. Copenhagen: IWGIA, pp. 654–662.Google Scholar
Kumaraguru, P. & Cranor, L. F. (2005). Privacy Indexes: A Survey of Westin’s Studies. Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isri2005/CMU-ISRI-05-138.pdf.Google Scholar
Lake, J. (2016). The Face that Launched a Thousand Lawsuits: The American Women who Forged a Right to Privacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurer, M. & Seidl, T. (2021). Regulating the European Data-Driven Economy: A Case Study on the General Data Protection Regulation. Policy & Internet, 13, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazcoz, G. & de Hert, P. (2023). Humans in the GDPR and AIA Governance of Automated and Algorithmic Systems: Essential Pre-requisites Against Abdicating Responsibilities. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man–Computer Symbiosis. IRE Transactions of Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1, 4–11.Google Scholar
Licklider, J. C. R. & Taylor, R. W. (1968). The Computer as a Communication Device. Science & Technology, 76, 21–38.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of ‘Muddling Through’. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (2004). Law as a Social System. Trans. Ziegert, K. A. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynskey, O. (2014). Deconstructing Data Protection in the EU Legal Order. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 63, 569–597.Google Scholar
Lynskey, O. (2015). The Foundations of EU Data Protection Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lynskey, O. (2023). Complete and Effective Data Protection. Current Legal Problems, 76, 297–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantelero, A. (2022). Beyond Data: Human Rights, Ethical and Social Impact Assessment in AI. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.Google Scholar
Marion Manola v. Stevens & Myers (1890). New York Supreme Court, New York Times, June 15, 18, 21.Google Scholar
McCormick, D. W. & Spee, J. C. (2008). IBM and Germany 1922–1941, Organization Management Journal, 5, 208–213.Google Scholar
Meta (2023): Meta Platforms Inc and Others v. Bundeskartellamt. Case C-252/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:537, 4 July.Google Scholar
Meta (2022): Meta Platforms Ireland Limited v. Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV. Case C-319/20 ECLI:EU:C:2022:322, 28 April.Google Scholar
Mounier-Kuhn, P.-E. & Pégny, M. (2016). AFCAL and the Emergence of Computer Science in France: 1957–1967. Pursuit of the Universal, June 2016, Paris, France. https://hal.science/hal-01470302v1.Google Scholar
Moyn, S. (2010). The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nader, R. (1965). Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile. New York: Grossman.Google Scholar
Nader, R. (1970). Freedom from Information: The Act and the Agencies. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Justice Law Review, 5, 1–15.Google Scholar
Nilsson, E. (2023). Real and Imagined Encounters in the Social History of Surveillance: Soviet Migrants and the Petrov Affair. Journal of Social History, 56, 583–606.Google Scholar
Nonet, P. & Selznick, P. ([1978] 2001). Law & Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law, 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
O’Mara, M. (2018). The End of Privacy Began in the 1960s. New York Times, 5 December, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opinion/google-facebook-privacy.html.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1980). Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flow of Personal Data, 23 September.Google Scholar
Packard, V. (1964). The Naked Society: An Exploration of the Mounting Assault on our Privacy by Big Government, Big Business, and Big Education. New York: D. McKay Co.Google Scholar
Pasquale, F. (2020). New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Pasquale, F. (2025). Data Access and AI Explainability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peers, S. (2011). The Rebirth of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. In Barnard, C. & Odudu, O., eds., Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 13, pp. 283–310.Google Scholar
Pharmacy Case (1958). 7 BVerfG 377. In Kommers, D. & Miller, R. A. (2012). The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 3rd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 666–670.Google Scholar
Pilkington, E. (2013). Declassified NSA Files Show Agency Spied on Muhammad Ali and MLK. The Guardian, 26 September.Google Scholar
Promusicae (2008): Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España. Case C-275/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:54, 29 January.Google Scholar
Quelle, M. (2018). Enhancing Compliance under the General Data Protection Regulation: The Risky Upshot of the Accountability- and Risk-Based Approach. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9, 502–526.Google Scholar
Radin, M. J. (1989). The Pragmatist and the Feminist. Southern California Law Review, 63, 1699–1726.Google Scholar
Riccardi, J. L. (1983). The German Federal Data Protection Act of 1977: Protecting the Right to Privacy? Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 6, 243–271.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. (2015). The Battle for Rights: Getting Data Protection Cases to Court. Oslow Law Review, 2, 23–35.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. (2017). The Right to Privacy: Origins and Influence of a Nineteenth-Century Idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. (2023a). The Right to Privacy 1914–1948: The Lost Years. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. (2023b). From Lenah Game Meats to Farm Transparency: Cultures of Privacy and Surveillance in Australia. Current Legal Issues seminar series, University of Queensland/Queensland Bar Association, 9 November. https://shorturl.at/PudVV.Google Scholar
Richardson, M., Bosua, R., Clarke, K., Webb, J, Ahmad, A., Maynard, S. (2017). Towards Responsive Regulation of the Internet of Things: Australian Perspectives. Internet Policy Review, 6, doi.org/10.14763/2017.1.455.Google Scholar
Risse, M. (2023). Political Theory of the Digital Age: Where Artificial Intelligence Might Take us. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodotà, S. (2009). Data Protection as a Fundamental Right. In Gutwirth, S. et al., eds., Reinventing Data Protection? Dordrecht: Springer Science, pp. 77–82.Google Scholar
Roessler, B. (2017). Privacy as a Human Right. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 117, 187–206.Google Scholar
Rundfunk (2003): Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others. Case C-139/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:294.Google Scholar
SABAM v. Netlog (2012): Sabamelgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog NV. Case C-360/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:85, 16 February.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. (2017). Meet Alan Emtage, the Black Technologist Who Invented ARCHIE, the First Internet Search Engine. JSTOR Daily, February 21. https://daily.jstor.org/alan-emtage-first-internet-search-engine/.Google Scholar
Satamedia (2008): Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy. Case C-73/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:727.Google Scholar
Scarlet Extended v. SABAM (2011): Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM). Case C-70/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:771, 11 November.Google Scholar
Schecke & Eifert (2010): Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:353, 9 November.Google Scholar
Schrems I (2015): Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner. C-362/14, ECLIEU:C:2015:650, 6 October.Google Scholar
Schrems II (2020): Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems. C-311/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:55, 16 July.Google Scholar
Shils, E. & Rheinstein, M. (1954). Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. Trans. Shils, E. & Rheinstein, M. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Simitis, S. (2015). Hat der Datenschutz noch eine Chance? Interview by Berndt Frye. Goethe University, Frankfurt. https://rb.gy/mvpl0z.Google Scholar
Solove, D. J. (2023). The Limitations of Privacy Rights. Notre Dame Law Review, 98, 975–1035.Google Scholar
Solove, D. J. (2024). Murky Consent: An Approach to the Fictions of Consent in Privacy Law. Boston University Law Review, 104, 593–639.Google Scholar
Spafford, E. (1988). The Internet Worm Program: An Analysis. Purdue Technical Report CSD-TR-823. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. https://spaf.cerias.purdue.edu/tech-reps/823.pdf.Google Scholar
Stadler, G. & Herzog, T. (1982). Data Protection: International Trends and the Austrian Example. IIASA Collaborative Paper. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33893567.pdf.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., Burgess, J., Angus, D. & Lawrence, A. (2022). Building an Australian Social Data Observatory. Innovation Papers, June 2022, 31–32. https://internetobservatory.org.au/post/blog-post-three-tbsem.Google Scholar
Tzanou, M. (2013). Data Protection as a Fundamental Right Next to Privacy? ‘Reconstructing’ a Not so New Right. International Data Privacy Law, 3, 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN General Assembly (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A/RES/217(III), 10 December.Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December.Google Scholar
UN Human Rights Committee (1988). CCPR General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection of Honour and Reputation, 8 April.Google Scholar
United States Congress (1974). The Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93–579, 31 December.Google Scholar
United States House of Representatives Special Subcommittee (1965). Invasion of Privacy, 2, 3, 4, and 23 June and 23 September.Google Scholar
United States House of Representatives Special Subcommittee (1966). The Computer and Invasion of Privacy, 26–28 July.Google Scholar
US Department of Health, Education & Welfare (1973). Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens. Report of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems. DHEW Publication NO. (OS), 73–94. www.justice.gov/opcl/docs/rec-com-rights.pdf.Google Scholar
Van Der Sloot, B. (2017). Legal Fundamentalism: Is Data Protection Really a Fundamental Right? In Leenes, R., van Brakel, R., Gutwirth, S. & De Hert, P., eds., Data Protection and Privacy: (In)visibilities and Infrastructures. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v. Taylor (1937). 58 CLR 479, 26 August.Google Scholar
Von Jhering, R. (1879). The Struggle for Law (Der Kampf um’s Recht, 5th ed., 1877). Trans. Lalor, J. J. Chicago: Callaghan & Co.Google Scholar
Waldman, A. E. (2022). Privacy’s Rights Trap, Northwestern University Law Review, 117, 88–106.Google Scholar
Ware, W. H. (1979). Security Controls for Computer Systems: Report of Defence Science Board Task Force on Computer Security. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), R-609–1. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Ware, W. H. (1980). Privacy and Information Technology: The Years Ahead. In Hoffman, L. J., ed., Computers and Privacy in the Next Decade. New York: Academic Press, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar
Warren, S. D. & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society [Soziologische Kategorienlehre]. Ed. and trans. Tribe, K. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Westin, A. F. & Baker, M.A. (1972). Databanks in a Free Society: Computers, Record-Keeping, and Privacy. Report by Project on Computer Databanks (National Academy of Sciences). New York: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
Westin, A. F. & Baker, M. A. (1973). Databanks in a Free Society. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 4I, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, M. E. & Mattord, H. E. (2021). Management of Information Security, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, N. (1950). The Human Uses of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
Yeung, K. & Bygrave, L. A. (2021). Demystifying the Modernized European Data Protection Regime: Cross-Disciplinary Insights from Legal and Regulatory Governance Scholarship. Regulation & Governance, 16, 137–155.Google Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
The PDF of this Element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.