Privacy and Data Protection – Page 24

November 27, 2017November 27, 2017

India’s Supreme Court, Gay Rights and Privacy. Maybe Something’s Wrong Out There…

Last August, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark decision on privacy as a fundamental right, opposing the view that privacy has not a Constitutional stand:

the submission that privacy is only a right at common law misses the wood for the trees. The central theme is that privacy is an intrinsic part of life, personal liberty and of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III which entitles it to protection as a core of constitutional doctrine. The protection of privacy by the Constitution liberates it, as it were, from the uncertainties of statutory law which, as we have noted, is subject to the range of legislative annulments open to a majoritarian government. ¹.

Continue reading “India’s Supreme Court, Gay Rights and Privacy. Maybe Something’s Wrong Out There…”

Pag. 222 ↩

November 25, 2017

Scientific Research: the Italian Data Protection Commissioner Soro to support a very dangerous position about Biobanks

In an interview published by the Italian newspaper “La Stampa” on Oct. 31, 2017 the Italian Data Protection Commissioner Soro stated that:

“If it is true that a profit can be gained from the research on human biological material, is it true – too – that there is no such thing as biobank ownership, but only the right to research the available samples. ¹“

Continue reading “Scientific Research: the Italian Data Protection Commissioner Soro to support a very dangerous position about Biobanks”

“Se è vero che si possono ottenere profìtti dalle ricerche sul materiale biologico degli esseri umani, è altrettanto vero non esiste la proprietà di una biobanca, ma solo il diritto a fare studi sui campioni disponibili” – English translation by Andrea Monti. ↩

November 16, 2017November 16, 2017

GDPR vs CRISPR: the Bureaucracy Against the Science that Saves Human Life

Man Receives First In Vivo Gene-Editing Therapy. This is how The Scientist titles about the news of a man (whose personal data have been made public) affected by Hunter Syndrome that has been treated with a gene-editing technique.

It is much too early to know whether the genetic therapy will work (thus withdrawing the need to pay huge money just to control, and not eliminate, this rare disease). But fact is that scientists did a giant step ahead by treating humans with this method.

Thus it is reasonable to expect that in the very next years many genetic diseases will be finally cured and not just taken under control until the patient dies.

This will happens notwithstanding the GDPR – or, better – notwithstanding the blind madness of the bureaucratic and pedantic interpretation that, in the name of the “protection of fundamental rights” endangers the scientific research and deprive us of the basic right we all deserve to protect: the right to life.

October 30, 2017

The Right to Be Forgotten Has Nothing To Do With Privacy

A side effect of ? Fuchmanns vs Germany is ? the (hopefully final) clarification that Right to Be Forgotten has nothing to do with Privacy protection.

Fuchmanns vs Germany, indeed, is an European Court of Human Rights Article 8 (privacy) case, while Right to Be Forgotten is an EU Fundamental Chart Article 7 (personal data protection) right.

Trying to use privacy as a legal basis for the Right to be forgotten is just plain wrong.

October 28, 2017October 28, 2017

GDPR: from the Right to Be Forgotten to the Duty of Not Being Remembered

Leo Matiz took this picture in 1957, in Caracas, Venezuela. The photo was a “candid”, i.e. shot unbeknownst to the people portrayed, in the classic, Cartier-Bresson-like street-photography style, and acquired by the New York MoMA. Continue reading “GDPR: from the Right to Be Forgotten to the Duty of Not Being Remembered”