惠灵顿论文代写:数据保护法

2017-03-24 11:18

数据保护法1998，这是特别重要的电子数据，因为它是这种形式的信息，保护有关的员工，客户和学生。这是1984数据保护法的关键，但是，制定了1998法案，使英国法律符合欧盟指令，欧盟数据保护指令95 / 46和指令97 /第。这一行为扩展到包括纸质文件和电子文件。因此，1998的数据保护法提供了制度保障电子数据只要有一个客户和业务关系；不适用于互联网信息与隐私保护如何，然而，因为除非有某种协议的网站和客户端不提供保护，如易趣、亚马逊。因此，本条例并不在互联网上提供保护，从出版；这是其他隐私法律的领域；而信息格式的开放式的描述是一个例子，议会和立法者的理解信息的本质是快速变化和发展。总之，这种态度给案件的司法解释提供了进一步的余地，当案件出现在他们面前时，关于数据是否被保护。这是保护数据的内容也很包容的，因为数据保护原则，包括数据必须；在公平、合法的方式处理；获得合法的目的；获得指定的合法目的；必须准确和更新；没有超过绝对必要的；在个体的人数据整理后加工整理的权利一致；按照措施确保没有任何非法的整理或披露；不给欧盟以外的国家的申请人除非有类似措施。因此，数据保护法1998确保所有信息的整理；公司；律师；教育设施；医疗设施和政府机构的保护，免受第三方的入侵，但合法和公平地传递给相关授权部门。然而，有一个问题在于，通过互联网整理的信息，除非它是一个专门的客户和公司网站。这是因为这些信息不是以一个特定的网站的方式进行整理的，而且互联网上的很多地方都是一般的论坛，比如聊天室，因此对公众开放的信息。此外，还有很多未经授权的网站，它的规则，指挥他们，这是这些网站，有一个危险，隐私将被入侵。正是这样的场景，导致了现代信息高速公路时代的诸多问题。有最后一种类型的追索权，一个人可以用来保护他们的隐私权，这是诽谤。这种混合的普通法和法规允许保护免受损害的声誉信息公布或损害，如果它已经公布，这是最严格的保护形式之一。然而，有辩护，如理由和雷诺兹测试[ 3 ]。雷诺兹测试[ 4 ]是最重要的保护言论自由，并已被用于公共利益抗辩的媒体，特别是在媒体作为公共利益的看门狗的情况下。因此，这种辩护允许公共利益的出版物，它已被定义为任何公众感兴趣的[ 5 ]。
惠灵顿论文代写:数据保护法
The Data Protection Act 1998, which is specifically important to electronic data because it is this form of information that is protected in relation to employees, clients and students. This is the key to the 1984 Data Protection Act; however the 1998 Act was enacted to bring the UK law in line with the EU Directives; EC Data Protection Directive 95/46 and Directive 97/66. This act was extended to include paper files as well as electronic files. Therefore the Data Protection Act 1998 provides a system of protection to electronic data as long as there is a client and business relationship; however how does apply to Internet information and the protection of privacy, because unless there is some sort of arrangement between the Website and client it does not provide protection, e.g. E-Bay or Amazon.com. Therefore this statute does not provide protection from publication on the Internet; this is the domain of other privacy laws; however the open-ended description of the format of information is an illustration that parliament and law makers understand that the nature of information is rapidly changing and evolving. In short this attitude has given further leeway for judicial interpretation when cases come in front of them, concerning whether the data is protected or not. The content of data that is protected is also very encompassing, because the data protection principles, which includes that data must be; processed in a fair and lawful manner; obtained for lawful purposes; obtained for specified lawful purposes; must be accurate and updated; kept no longer than absolutely necessary; processed in accordance with the rights of the individual whom the data was collated upon; collated in accordance with measures to ensure there is not any unlawful collation or disclosure; not be given outside the EU unless there are similar measures in the applicant state. Hence the Data Protection Act 1998 ensures all information collated by; companies; lawyers; educational facilities; medical facilities; and government agencies are protected from the intrusion of third parties but lawfully and fairly passed on to relevant authorized departments. However there is a problem that lies with the information that is collated through the Internet, unless it is a specifically a client and company website. This is because this information is not collated in the same manner as a specific website and a lot of areas on the Internet are general forums, such as chat rooms and therefore information that is open to the public. Also there is a lot of unauthorized websites, which haven rules commanding them and it is these websites where there is a danger that privacy will be invaded. It is such scenarios that cause a lot of the problems with the modern era of the Information Super Highway. There is one last type of recourse that an individual can use to protect their right to privacy, which is defamation. This mixture of common law and statute allows protection from damaging information of the reputation to be published or damages if it has been published, this is one of strictest forms of protection. However there are defences, such as justification and the Reynolds Test[3]. The Reynolds Test[4] is the most significant in the protection of the Freedom of Expression and has been used a public interest defence for the media, especially in cases where the media acts as a watchdog of the public’s interests. Therefore this defence allows for public interest publication, which has been defined as anything that the public is interested in[5].