Sentence examples for privacy harms from inspiring English sources

As well as obtaining consent to process data, biobanks may employ a number of other 'buffer safeguards' which aim at avoiding privacy harms to the individual.

Daniel Solove (2006) takes seriously the criticism that privacy suffers from an embarrassment of meanings and the concern that new technologies have given rise to a panoply of new privacy harms.

For example, Knoppers (2000) argues that in most instances stored genetic information does not provide sufficient information about disorders resulting from multiple allele environment interactions to cause privacy harms.

As Schoen describes it, "researchers pose research questions to the original data controller, which returns intentionally fuzzy/corrupted answers, and you can allegedly mathematically quantify how much privacy harm was done in the process and then debate whether it was worthwhile in light of the benefits of the research".

The data protection system is based on a principle of preventing privacy harm [20].

In this paper, we have introduced the articulation of the privacy-by-design in big data analytics and social mining for enabling the design of analytical processes that minimize the privacy harm, or even prevent the privacy harm.

For example, that we are mixing up the inherent privacy harm of XKeyscore and the response of the government to Lavabit once it discovered that Snowden had an account there.

A month earlier, the same court issued an injunction ordering Google to remove search results that revealed the identity of a man who complained that articles implicating him in past criminal activity were violating his right to privacy and harming his reputation.

Ofcom already regulates the BBC on matters of obscenity, privacy and harm, but the corporation has maintained its independence on questions of editorial impartiality.

Also, and in relationship with a (real or perceived) dominance of ethics (notably medical ethics), ELSA (like its predecessor ELSI) has been accused of focussing on a limited set of issues, notably individual autonomy (and related items such as privacy) and harm or risk.

These advocates "are convinced that overturning [Auernheimer's] conviction will help security and privacy, not harm it," according to their court brief, which was filed by Stanford Law professor Jennifer Granick.