The EU-U.S. Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures
126 Harvard Law Review 1966 (2013)
2013
- 4Citations
- 5,839Usage
- 4Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
The European Commission’s release in late January 2012 of its proposed "General Data Protection Regulation" provides a perfect juncture to assess the ongoing EU-U.S. privacy collision. An intense debate is now occurring around critical areas of information policy, including the rules for lawfulness of personal processing, the "right to be forgotten," and the conditions for data flows between the EU and the United States. This Article begins by tracing the rise of the current EU-U.S. privacy status quo. The 1995 Data Protection Directive staked out a number of bold positions, including a limit on international data transfers to countries that lacked "adequate" legal protections for personal information. The impact of the Directive has been considerable. Yet, the United States proves an outlier to the story of international information privacy law. As an initial matter, the EU is skeptical regarding the level of protection that U.S. law actually provides. Moreover, despite the important role of the United States in early global information privacy debates, the rest of the world has followed the EU model and enacted EU-style "data protection" laws. At the same time, the aftermath of the Directive has seen ad hoc policy efforts between the United States and EU that have created numerous paths to satisfy the EU’s requirement of "adequacy" for data transfers from the EU to the United States. This Article argues that this policymaking has not been led exclusively by the EU, but has been a collaborative effort marked by accommodation and compromise. It then analyzes the likely impact of the Proposed Regulation on Data Protection, which is slated to replace the Directive. The Proposed Regulation threatens to destabilize the current privacy policy equilibrium and prevent the kind of decentralized global policymaking that has occurred in the past. The Proposed Regulation overturns the current equilibrium by heightening certain individual rights beyond levels that U.S. information privacy law recognizes. It also centralizes power in the European Commission in a way that destabilizes the policy equilibrium within the EU, and thereby threatens the current policy processes around harmonization networks. To avert the privacy collision ahead, this Article advocates modifications to the kinds of institutions and procedures that the Proposed Regulation would create.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know