Global Privacy Protection

Global Privacy Protection

The First Generation

Edited by James B. Rule

Global Privacy Protection reviews the origins and history of national privacy codes as social, political and legal phenomena in Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, South Korea and the United States. The first chapter reviews key international statements on privacy rights, such as the OECD, EU and APEC principles. In the following chapters, the seven national case studies present and analyze the widest variety of ‘privacy stories’ in an equally varied array of countries. They look beyond the details of what current national data-protection laws allow and prohibit to examine the origins of public concern about privacy; the forces promoting or opposing privacy codes; the roles of media, grassroots activists and elite intervention; and a host of other considerations shaping the present state of privacy protection in each country.

Chapter 1: International Agreements to Protect Personal Data

Lee A. Bygrave

Subjects: law - academic, information and media law, politics and public policy, public policy


Lee A. Bygrave CLEAVAGE, CO-OPERATION AND THE INCREASING WEIGHT OF THE WORLD ‘This is not bananas we are talking about.’ Thus spake Spiros Simitis when describing the European view of privacy in an interview with the New York Times in May 1999.1 Simitis, Europe’s de facto privacy doyen,2 made his remark at a time when the European Union (EU) was locked in a dispute with the United States of America (USA) over what constitutes adequate protection of personal data. The primary catalyst for the dispute was the adoption by the EU of a Directive on data protection in 1995.3 The Directive places a qualified restriction on flow of personal data from the EU to any non-EU member state failing to offer ‘adequate’ protection of personal data. For many nonEuropeans, this seemed to be a case of the EU legislating for the rest of the world and, indeed, legislating to the detriment of legitimate business interests. Concern about such detriment was especially strident in the USA. There, federal government officials had estimated that the restriction threatened up to USD120 billion in trade – an amount far greater than had supposedly been at stake in previous trans-Atlantic trade conflicts.4 In May 1999, the dispute between the EU and USA had entered a particularly tense stage. After months of negotiations, talks were stalling, each side claiming that the other was trying to impose unacceptable terms.5 It was a time of brinkmanship in the setting of trans-Atlantic privacy policy. Andrews 1999. Simitis was the...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information