2321 records match your query:
|1. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Privacy, Confidence & Data Protection in the 21st Century|
David Tan  Sing JLS 1 (Mar)
On 5 and 6 December 2019, the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore ("NUS Law") hosted about 100 participants at the 8th Asian Privacy Scholars Network ("APSN") Conference at its Bukit Timah Campus, convened by Professor David Tan. The conference was jointly presented by the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business and the Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law ("TRAIL")&#151;both research centres at NUS Law. TRAIL was also launched by Mr Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law and Health, on the first day of the conference.
|2. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|A Common Law of Privacy?|
Megan Richardson  Sing JLS 6 (Mar)
As comparative lawyer Otto Kahn-Freund observed in the mid-1970s, there is a "far reaching free trade in legal ideas. Far reaching, not all embracing". We see this manifested in the law of privacy, whether understood in the traditional sense of freedom from intrusion into private life or some more extended sense of, for instance, control over personal information or physical or sensory integrity stretching beyond the enjoyment of an intimate interior private life. On the one hand, there is a great deal of cross-fertilisation across jurisdictions as elements of the law of one are copied in others, allowing certain broad groupings to evolve. On the other hand, there are still many differences between and within these groupings which may be partly due to the different legal contexts of the laws, but are also partly due to factors having to do with different social-cultural histories and norms, as well as different political environments within which laws are developed, interpreted, and enforced. These tensions have ongoing implications for the protection of privacy in the digital century. Yet there are hopeful signs of the possibility of convergence around legal standards of privacy protection in the future, as in the present and past&#151;for all the legal, social-cultural and political differences that remain and for all the new challenges to privacy that we can expect to see.[Full Text]
|3. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Enforcement Design for Data Privacy: A Comparative Study|
Gehan Gunasekara  Sing JLS 19 (Mar)
This article explores whether design of enforcement mechanisms in data privacy laws influences the types of privacy harms addressed by them through evaluating evidence of enforcement from four jurisdictions. It uses three of the foundational design principles identified by Cavoukian to examine if each category of data privacy (data quality, access rights, use, disclosure, security and so forth) should be addressed through enforcement tools suited to their characteristics. The evidence supports the need for proactive regulator-led enforcement, rather than reactive litigation by complainants in relation to some areas. Such enforcement also has an educative function aligning with the principle of transparency. Where full functionality necessitates mechanisms for individuals to litigate complaints, the research found that specialist tribunals were more sympathetic to complainants than were courts. It also discovered that litigation by individuals tended to be linked to disputes between the parties unrelated to privacy and addressed only harms that came to light through complainants' prior knowledge. Finally, the evidence from each jurisdiction studied provides useful lessons for other jurisdictions as to both the conduct targeted and the need for substantive rules such as erasure or the right to be forgotten.
|4. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|The Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Aims of EU Competition Law and Data Protection: Time to Level the Playing Field|
Divin De Buffalo Irakiza  Sing JLS 39 (Mar)
The proliferation of data-driven markets continues to raise questions about their implications for the right to data protection. A recent suggestion is that EU competition law can and should be used to address data protection concerns in the age of big data. However, the European Commission is reluctant to consider data protection issues in EU competition law, maintaining instead that competition law is not the right tool to promote the right to data protection. Yet, following the Treaty of Lisbon, data protection is a fundamental right under Article 16 of the TFEU as well as Article 8 of the Charter. Therefore, considering that the EU is under a duty to promote fundamental rights by virtue of Article 51 of the Charter, this paper argues that data protection should be among the objectives of EU competition law.
|5. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Whose Health Record? A Comparison of Patient Rights Under National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) Regulations in Europe and Asia-Pacific Jurisdictions|
James Scheibner, Marcello Ienca and Effy Vayena  Sing JLS 56 (Mar)
In this paper, we compare four patient rights regarding data stored in NEHRs under nine European and Asia-Pacific jurisdictions. We aim to ascertain whether the success and failure of NEHR implementations could be attributable to differences in patient rights. We note that while there is a convergence of access controls, there is a divergence with respect to controlling third-party access and modifying patient data. Analysing these divergences through four bioethical principles defined by Beauchamp and Childress, we find claims of patient empowerment mask a neoliberal perspective of outsourcing responsibility to patients. Likewise, refusing sufficient granular control can contribute to patient mistrust.We argue that it is important to conceptualise NEHRs as a public good and design regulatory frameworks accordingly.
|6. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Three Shades of Data: Australia, Philippines, Thailand|
Robert Brian Smith, Mark Perry and Nucharee Nuchkoom Smith  Sing JLS 76 (Mar)
Unauthorised access to data has raised concern amongst business, citizens and legislators globally. However, different jurisdictions have taken various approaches ranging from controlling access via data protection legislation to deeming liability based on the nature of the data, such as through privacy legislation. This paper is a comparative analysis of the privacy legislation of the Philippines, Thailand and Australia through their Data Privacy Act of 2012, the Personal Data Protection Act 2019, and the Privacy Act 1988, respectively. These Acts have many provisions, and Australian states also have their own acts. The Australian federal legislation is the most developed of the three and its effectiveness can be evaluated by outcomes of investigations and enforceable undertakings issued for data breaches. In all three countries, the primary data privacy legislation is also supported by privacy-related provisions under other statues. The analysis focuses on types of data protected by privacy provisions, methods for investigating breaches and imposing penalties, and whether breaches result in administrative action, civil liability or criminal offences.
|7. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|The State of the Doctrine of Unconscionability in Singapore|
Nelson Enonchong  Sing JLS 100 (Mar)
In E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd (2010), the Singapore High Court declared that unconscionability as a vitiating factor in contract did not form part of the law of Singapore. That statement was the culmination of growing judicial doubts as to the status of the doctrine of unconscionability in Singapore. However, the signal decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in BOM v BOK (2018) arrested that development and charted a new course for the doctrine. This article examines the current state of the doctrine of unconscionability in Singapore. It traces the rise and fall of judicial scepticism towards unconscionability in Singapore and welcomes the clarity introduced by the restatement of the doctrine in BOM v BOK . It calls on the Singaporean courts to resist the temptation, manifested in BOM v BOK , to accept the view that the doctrine of unconscionability is redundant because its function is now performed by undue influence. The article argues that, contrary to the characterisation in BOM v BOK , the doctrine of unconscionability represented by the earlier English cases is a broad doctrine, not a narrow one. It also contends that it is misleading to suggest that the formulation of the doctrine in the current English cases is, in substance, the same as that of the 'broad' doctrine of unconscionability exemplified by the decision of the High Court of Australia in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983). The paper scrutinises the reshaped doctrine of unconscionability formulated in BOM v BOK , highlights some potential difficulties in the three-step process of that doctrine and concludes with a call for a reconsideration of some aspects of the doctrine.[Full Text]
|8. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Mobile Intellectual Property and the Shift in International Tax Policy From Determining the Source of Income to Taxing Location-Specific Rents: Part Two|
Daniel Shaviro  Sing JLS 128 (Mar)
In recent decades, a number of fantastically successful, mainly American, multinational entities ("MNEs")&#151;led and epitomised by the 'Four Horsemen', Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, but also extending beyond the tech sector&#151;have earned huge profits, while paying very low global taxes, through their use of intellectual property ("IP"). Since IP, in contrast to tangible property, generally lacks a clear location, it empowers corporate tax avoidance at the expense of both the production countries where the MNEs' high-value owner-employees live, and the market countries where their customers live. This two-part article assesses the challenges posed for countries' international tax systems by the rise of mobile IP, including but not limited to the case where it is embodied in a digital platform. Part One assessed the challenges posed for the traditional income tax concept of source, and for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD")'s proposed focus on the site of 'value creation'. In this issue, Part Two focuses on proposals to shift taxing rights towards market jurisdictions that may enjoy location-specific rents with regard to the MNEs' access to their consumers, including via the use of digital service taxes ("DSTs").
|9. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Revisiting the Double Actionability Rule in Singapore: Time for a Change|
Tan Ming Ren  Sing JLS 155 (Mar)
The double actionability rule, which was first laid down in the 19th century, has been the subject of considerable academic and judicial criticism. Over the years, several jurisdictions around the world have abandoned the double actionability rule in favour of alternative choice of law rules for torts. Canada, in two landmark decisions, reconsidered its earlier jurisprudence on the applicable choice of law rules for torts, as well as multijurisdictional defamation cases in particular. However, the apex court in Singapore has unquestioningly adopted the double actionability rule as part of Singapore law in a series of cases starting in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the seeds of reform that were sown by the lower courts at various points in time have been largely ignored. This article argues that in the light of recent developments and changing circumstances, the time is now ripe for Singapore to follow the lead of Canada and many other jurisdictions in departing from the double actionability rule.
|10. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|A Case for Proportionality Review in Singaporean Constitutional Adjudication|
Marcus Teo  Sing JLS 174 (Mar)
Singapore's courts have long refused to adopt proportionality review in constitutional adjudication. However, their instinct to reject proportionality, while possibly well-founded, has yet to be thoroughly tested. This article forwards three arguments for proportionality's use in Singaporean constitutional adjudication. First, as a matter of precedent, proportionality's four enquiries are already latent in Singapore's constitutional jurisprudence. Second, as a matter of principle, Singapore's courts have the constitutional authority to adopt proportionality as a ground of constitutional review and are not institutionally incompetent to answer its enquiries. Third, on grounds of policy, proportionality is desirable because it helps ensure the cogency and rationality of legislative or executive acts within Singapore's burgeoning political culture of justification. By making a case for proportionality in precedent, principle and policy, this article hopes to initiate a considered discussion on whether and, if so, to what extent proportionality should be used in Singaporean constitutional adjudication.