Is Privacy and Personal Data Set to Become the New Intellectual Property?

The Colour of Copyright

Incomplete Harmonization Contracts in International Economic Law: Report of the Panel, China - Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Wt/Ds362/R, Adopted 20 March 2009

The article is devoted to the research of the intellectual property rights system in Ukraine. Intellectual property is the result of the creative activity of any person or group of people. The author studied the categories «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right», investigated the principles of intellectual property and the system of intellectual property rights of Ukraine. In Roman law, there was the term «property», because the «property right» in its classical meaning was formed in Rome, and related to private relationships. Intellectual property is the property of a person that arose as a result of her creativity. However, for our Ukrainian legislation, the expression «intellectual property» is «terra incognita». Yes, intellectual property is studied by such branch legal sciences as: civil law, administrative law, international law, and others. Formed the State Service of Intellectual Property, but the organization of the state system of legal protection of intellectual property, in our difficult times, wants a better one. In the legal literature on intellectual property issues various definitions of «intellectual property right» are given. From a subjective point of view – this is a subjective right, and from an objective point of view – a civil law institute, a set of legal norms that regulate relations in the system of creation and protection of intellectual property. Man, his freedom and rights are the most important value of evolutionary development of society, which manifests itself in the growth of the intellectual potential of the population of each country. Only man possesses intelligence, creative potential and creative abilities. In addition to it, on earth, no living creature can create. Creative activity is the most important aspect of human life, which allows you to convey your talent to society. The consequence of this activity is something new, unique, unique and original. The accumulated products of the human mind are the heritage of the nation, which determine its further development.The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees to the citizens of the state freedom of scientific, artistic, literary and technical creativity, protection of intellectual property rights, moral and material interests arising in connection with various types of intellectual activity. Every citizen has the right to the results of his intellectual, creative activity; no one can use or distribute them without his consent, with the exception of the statutory provisions. The intellectual potential of the nation, in the form of improving education, production, culture, science and technology, needs constant support from our state. The Civil Code of Ukraine for the first time in our national legislation was given a formal definition of the right of intellectual property, as the rights of the individual to the result of intellectual, creative activity or other object of intellectual property rights.

The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanisms for regulating and protecting intellectual property rights in the context of the production of personal protective equipment in the context of a threat to national security. To this end, the study analysed Ukrainian legislation and international regulations governing intellectual property rights, particularly those of manufacturers of personal protective equipment. Thus, in the context of a threat to national security, the intellectual property rights of Ukrainian manufacturers of personal protective equipment were found to be crucial due to the military conflict and the need to protect both the population and the armed forces. The state must guarantee access to vital technologies while respecting the rights of producers, which makes the issue of intellectual property particularly relevant considering the growing demand for the latest developments in the personal protective equipment sector. Cooperation with international partners in the field of technology and intellectual property protection can help develop national production of personal protective equipment and reduce dependence on imported supplies. Government agencies should focus on developing policies that promote the protection of intellectual property rights and provide mechanisms to support manufacturers in critical situations. Raising awareness of producers about their rights and opportunities to protect intellectual property is a crucial step in strengthening their market position. It is essential to strike a balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the needs of society in the context of a threat to national security. Governments should consider temporary relaxation of rights in times of crisis to ensure overall security

Nowadays, one of the pressing issues of intellectual property protection is unsystematic judicial enforcement. It is a common situation when different courts hold diametrically opposite positions in similar cases. Moreover, court decisions do not always comply with the existing law and litigation practice in intellectual property cases, which ultimately hinders the uniform and accurate application of the law in this sphere. In addition, the effectiveness of intellectual property rights significantly reduces due to the adoption of ‘ridiculous’ judicial acts, which negatively affects the policy pursued by Kazakhstan to fight against the violation of the above-mentioned rights. The article is relevant since the problem in question is insufficiently studied, which conditions scientific interest and determines its applicability. The main objective of this research is to consider and analyze law enforcement based on the study of civil cases in the sphere of intellectual property, as well as identify contradictions and gaps in the current legislation on intellectual property protection.
 In this regard, the article aims at identifying the controversial aspects of this category of cases, explaining their causes and offering a possible solution. The article analyzes judgments delivered by courts of the Kostanay Region regarding intellectual property, evaluates the existing legislation on intellectual property rights, reveals topical issues and develops ways of addressing them. The main approach to studying the above-mentioned problem is analysis that helps consider some claims challenging certain intellectual property rights, which is also the research object. Since the litigation practice concerned with intellectual property protection is being developed, this article can predict a possible position of courts on this issue. The theoretical and practical significance of this study is conditioned by the conclusions drawn by the authors regarding the development and improvement of the current civil and civil procedure legislation. Thus, this article is of practical interest not only to students and lecturers within the framework of the ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ discipline, but also to intellectual property owners and judges.
 The scientific novelty of this study can be explained by the comprehensive approach to analyzing the effective protection of intellectual property rights in modern conditions with due regard to the law enforcement system of Kazakhstan and the need to strengthen the role of the state in solving problems related to the protection of intellectual property rights.

The purpose of the article is to identify the optimal approaches to the protection of intellectual property rights in international trade in agriculture based on the experience of the Russian Federation and China. The methodology of the study adopted in this article consists in a comprehensive consideration of modern approaches to the protection of intellectual property in international trade in agricultural products in Russia and China. Conclusions. At the international level, Chinese agricultural products face such problems as the protection of intellectual property rights abroad and technical barriers, which emphasizes the need to strengthen the protection of intellectual property. It is advisable to promote separate legislation on geographical indications and local centers for the protection of agricultural intellectual property (for example, a pilot project in Fujian Province), which can lead to a further increase in the competitiveness of Chinese agricultural products in the international market. In Russia, in the context of the research topic, the protection of traditional objects of patent rights (inventions, utility models, industrial designs), selection achievements, geographical indications and appellations of origin of goods, as well as other means of individualization, computer programs is of particular importance). The article separately examines the specifics of intellectual property protection in international electronic trade and parallel import of agricultural products. Scientific and practical relevance. The analysis allows us to conclude that it is necessary to systematize, taking into account the experience of the Russian Federation, the legislation on geographical indications, trademarks containing an indication of geographical origin and other related objects in the PRC. The idea of developing local centers in the PRC for the protection of agricultural intellectual property can be effectively perceived and implemented in Russia. The formulated conclusions and the analysis can be used to improve the current Russian and Chinese legislation, as well as in the practical activities of lawyers.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. "As a result of increasing interconnectivity, information systems and networks are now exposed to a growing number and a wider variety of threats and vulnerabilities. This raises new issues for security." OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks, July 25, 2002, at p. 7, available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/22/15582260.pdf. 2. Although not the subject of this article, it is important to note that countries are also enacting cybercrime legislation to make clear that certain online activities are illegal and to assist law enforcement in efforts to prosecute cyber criminals. To that end, the Privacy and Computer Crime Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Science & Technology Law has recently undertaken a project to develop a Model Cybercrime Law for the UN International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Cybersecurity Work Programme to Assist Developing Countries. See also the International Guide to Combating Cybercrime published by this Committee, available at http://www.abanet.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=ST202003. 3. See the Appendix for a compilation of some of the key laws and regulations governing information security. 4. See, e.g., EU Data Protection Directive and HIPAA, cited in the Appendix. 5. See, e.g., E-SIGN, UETA, and UN Convention cited in the Appendix. 6. See, e.g., Kimberly Kiefer and Randy V. Sabett, Openness of Internet Creates Potential for Corporate Information Security Liability, BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, Vol. 1, No. 25 at 788 (June 24, 2002); Alan Charles Raul, Frank R. Volpe, and Gabriel S. Meyer, Liability for Computer Glitches and Online Security Lapses, BNA Electronic Commerce Law Report, Vol. 6, No. 31 at 849 (August 8, 2001); Erin Kenneally, The Byte Stops Here: Duty and Liability for Negligent Internet Security, Computer Security Journal, Vol. XVI, No. 2, 2000. 7. See, e.g., Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007); Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006); and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005) (all affirming a negligence cause of action). See also, In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007) (rejecting a negligence claim due to the economic loss doctrine, but allowing a negligent misrepresentation claim to proceed). 8. See, e.g., American Express v. Vinhnee, 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. Bk. App. Panel, 2005); Lorraine v. Markel, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33020 (D. MD. May 4, 2007). 9. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. 10. Available at www.cabforum.org. 11. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC 27001"), available for purchase at http://www.standards-online.net/InformationSecurityStandard.htm. 12. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 13. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 14. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 15. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 and 1320d-4, (providing that "each person … who maintains or transmits health information shall maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards: (A) to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the information; (B) to protect against any reasonably anticipated: (i) threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the information; and (ii) unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information; and (C) otherwise to ensure compliance with this part by the officers and employees of such person," at 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 16. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act ("GLB"), Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999), at §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, providing that "[E]ach financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers' nonpublic personal information." 17. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC). 18. Final HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 19. There have also been efforts in the United States to pursue comprehensive federal privacy similar to the approach taken by many other countries. See e.g., Microsoft position paper at www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/features/2005/PrivacyLegislationCallWP.doc. Although it remains to be seen whether that approach will ultimately be adopted, it is clear that the combination of U.S. state and federal law has, in effect, imposed a comprehensive obligation of security with respect to all personal information held by all companies. 20. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of Sunbelt Lending Services, Inc.; In the Matter of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.; In the Matter of MTS, Inc., d/b/a Tower records/Books/Video; In the matter of Guess?, Inc.; FTC V. Microsoft; and In the Matter of Eli Lilly and Company cited in the Appendix. 21. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of CardSystems Solutions, Inc.; United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc.; In the Matter of DSW Inc.; and In the Matter of BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. cited in the Appendix. 22. See list in the Appendix. 23. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). 24. 205 Mich. App. Lexis 353 at ∗16 (Mich. App. 2005). 25. 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at ∗9 (D. Minn. 2006). 26. Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). 27. In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007), at pp. 28–29. 28. Ibid. 29. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines the term "information system" to mean "any equipment or interconnected system or subsystems of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information, and includes—(A) computers and computer networks; (B) ancillary equipment; (C) software, firmware, and related procedures; (D) services, including support services; and (E) related resources." Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, at Section 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § 3532(b)(4). 30. See, e.g., Australia, Information Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988, Principle No. 4, available at www.privacy.gov.au/publications/ipps.html; AICPA and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), Generally Accepted Privacy principles, Principle No. 8, available at http://infotech.aicpa.org/Resources/Privacy/Generally+Accepted+Privacy+Principles; APEC, Privacy principles, Principle No. 7, available at http://austlii.edu.au/∼graham/APEC/APECv10.doc; US-EU Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, available at www.export.gov/safeharbor/SHPRINCIPLESFINAL.htm; Direct Marketing Association, Online Marketing Guidelines, available at www.the-dma.org/guidelines/onlineguidelines.shtml. 31. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 32. EU Data Protection Directive, Preamble at Para. 46. 33. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 34. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 35. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 36. See generally, Bruce H. Nearon, Jon Stanley, Steven W. Teppler, and Joseph Burton, Life after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Merger of Information Security and Accountability, Jurimetrics Journal, Vol. 45, 379–412 (2005). 37. American Express v. Vinhnee, 336 B.R. 437; 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. December 16, 2006). 38. Ibid., at p. 444. 39. Ibid., at p. 445. 40. Ibid., at pp. 446–447. 41. Ibid., at p. 449. 42. See, e.g., National Association of Corporate Directors, Information Security Oversight (2007). 43. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 302. 44. See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations (Federal Reserve) 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix D-2.III(A). 45. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.308(a)(2). 46. See, FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix, including Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 27(a), p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at II.A. 47. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. 3544(a). 48. E. Michael Power and Roland L. Trope, Sailing in Dangerous Waters: A Director's Guide to Data Governanc e , American Bar Association (2005), p. 13; Roland L. Trope, "Directors' Digital Fiduciary Duties," IEEE Security & Privacy, January/February 2005 at p. 78. 49. Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996). 50. Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005), at pp. 11–13 (noting that harm was foreseeable, but Board took no action). 51. Securing Cyberspace: Business Roundtable's Framework for the Future, Business Roundtable, May 19, 2004 at pp. 1, 2; available at www.businessroundtable.org/pdf//20040518000CyberSecurityPrinciples.pdf. The Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. corporations with a combined workforce of more than 10 million employees in the United States. See www.businessroundtable.org. 52. Information Security Governance: A Call to Action, Corporate Governance Task Force Report, National Cyber Security Partnership, April 2004, pp. 12–13, available at www.cyberpartnership.org/InfoSecGov4_04.pdf. The National Cyber Security Partnership (NCSP) is led by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), TechNet, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in voluntary partnership with academicians, CEOs, federal government agencies, and industry experts. Following the release of the 2003 White House National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace and the National Cyber Security Summit, this public–private partnership was established to develop shared strategies and programs to better secure and enhance America's critical information infrastructure. Further information is available at www.cyberpartnership.org. 53. GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part III.A and Part III.F. 54. See, e.g., Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002) 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1); GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.306(a)(1); Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. 55. See, e.g., 44 USC 3532(b)(1), emphasis added. See also FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1). Most of the foreign privacy laws also focus their security requirements from this perspective. This includes, for example, the EU Privacy Directive, Finland's Privacy Law, Italy's Privacy Law, and the UK Privacy Law. Also in this category is the Canadian Privacy Law. 56. Although they often focus on categories of security measures to address. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 57. See, e.g., FDA regulations at 21 C.F.R. Part 11 (procedures and controls); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 257.1(e)(3) (procedures); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 240.17a-4 (controls); GLB regulations (FTC) 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (safeguards); Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Schedule I, Section 4.7 (safeguards); EU Data Privacy Directive, Article 17(1) (measures) available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf. 58. See, e.g., HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; COPPA, 15 U.S.C. 6502(b)(1)(D), and COPPA regulations 16 C.F.R. 312.8; IRS Rev. Proc. 97-22, sec. 4.01(2); SEC regulations 17 C.F.R. 257. See also UCC Article 4A, Section 202 ("commercially reasonable" security procedure), and Microsoft Consent Decree. 59. "Appropriate" security required by: HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 60. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1) (emphasis added) 61. See, e.g., Belgium—Belgian Law of 8 December 1992 on Privacy Protection in relation to the Processing of Personal Data, as modified by the law of 11 December 1998 Implementing Directive 95/46/EC, and the law of 26 February 2003, Chapter IV, Article 16(4); Denmark—Act on Processing of Personal Data,; Act No. 429 of 31 May 2000 (unofficial English translation), Title IV, Part 11, Section 41(3); Estonia—Personal Data Protection Act; Passed February12, 2003 (RT1 I 2003, 26, 158), entered into force October 1, 2003, Chapter 3, Sections 19(2); Greece—Law 2472/1997 on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (as amended by Laws 2819/2000 and 2915/2001); Article 10(3); Ireland—Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003; Section 2.-(1)(d) and First Schedule Article 7; Lithuania—Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data, January 21, 2003, No. IX-1296, Official translation, with amendments April 13, 2004, Article 24(1); Netherlands—25 892—Rules for the protection of personal data (Personal Data Protection Act) (Unofficial translation); Article 13; Portugal—Act on the Protection of Personal Data (transposing into the Portuguese legal system Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), Article 14(1); Slovakia—Act No 428 of July 3, 2002 on personal data protection; Section 15(1); Sweden—Personal Data Act (1998:204); issued April 29, 1998, Section 31; and UK—Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Principle. 62. See, e.g., Finland—The Finnish Personal Data Act (523/1999), given on 22.4.1999, Section 32(1); Germany—Federal Data Protection Act as of January 1, 2003, Section 9; Hungary—Act LXIII of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and Public Access to Data of Public Interest, Article 10(1); Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, Sections 31 and 33; Spain—Organic Law 15/1999 of December 13 on the Protection of Personal Data, Article 9. 63. 5 USC Sec. 552a. 64. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (d)(10) (emphasis added). 65. 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 66. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC) (emphasis added). 67. Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). 68. See UN Convention at Article 9(3), 9(4), and 9(5). 69. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005). See text at footnotes 157–169, infra. February 1, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift May 16 C.F.R. Part 44 U.S.C. Section 45 C.F.R. 164. See of the on by of the Technology and Homeland Security of the Committee on the United States 21, 2007 at p. (noting that FTC under the GLB Act as a for the obligation to maintain reasonable and appropriate available at See also, of the the on Information and the Committee on U.S. House of on April 21, 2004, at p. 5 (noting that is an of reasonable and appropriate measures in of the available at See, e.g., FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. See, e.g., National Association of Insurance for Information Model available at in at See, e.g., Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. 78. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006). Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Committee on available at See, e.g., Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, B, § Act No 428 of July 2002 on personal data § the Appendix, Act, B, Section Act, Section the Appendix, Act, Article Act, Section Act, 16(4); Act, Section 41(3); Act, Section Act, Section 32(1); Act, Section 9; Act, Article 10(3); Act, Article 10(1); Act, Article 24(1); Act, Article 13; Act, Article 14(1); Act, Section 15(1); Act, Article 9; Act, Section 31; UK Act, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Act, Article 7. the Appendix, Act, Schedule 2, Section Act, Act, Schedule 1, 4.7 Principle 7, Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and the Appendix, Act, Section A Security § Act, Section Decree the Appendix, Decree the Appendix, Act, Section Principle 4; Act, Article Act, Article Act, Sections and Act, Section Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and Bruce & Digital Security in a & at p. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., In Electronic July 30, Financial Council, 2; available at See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., United States v. Cir. See, e.g., Inc. v. also v. or of to with and of See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part and Part FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 CFR Section and and on HIPAA Security of & Section of Science & Technology Law, No. April 2003, at p. 2, available at See, e.g., HIPAA regulations 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Regulations, 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix and 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Microsoft Consent at p. 4. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5 and Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, and 26, pp. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at Microsoft Consent Decree at p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. See, e.g., of the of the of National on 21, at See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). See Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). See Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) that a was the to and a of a was not a of a of reasonable The Financial is a of U.S. federal agencies, that the Board of of the Reserve Insurance the National the of the of the and the of Thrift on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at Guide for the Guidelines Information Security December available at Information Security July available at See National Institute of and Management Guide for Information Technology No. available at ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC ISO/IEC § for is the and of International and is of a of the of with and a in that the The American National Institute the United States. See, The also in and in related to including The of make its with the United States. See ISO/IEC 27001, § (emphasis added). ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § 164. ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 6. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 8. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ ISO/IEC that with an International not in from legal p. 1. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 8. Article Data Protection on the processing of personal data to health in health February 15, at pp. available at (emphasis in See list of state laws in Report, Security and Laws of 15, 2005 at Appendix available at Code, § Rev. Stat. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. See list in the Appendix. See, e.g., 16 CFR Section Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § HIPAA security regulations to in the Act Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part security regulations to information in the financial Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § and § amending 44 U.S.C. § information and information systems from unauthorized and regulations, 21 C.F.R. Part 11. See, e.g., Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). See April 2, the Matter of of the Act of of Information and Information Services, No. No. April 2, at available at (hereinafter Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). in an Internet 12, 2005 available at This was by an on on in an Internet 8, available at of No. 25, The is an See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § at p. 6. Ibid., at p. 3. Ibid. v. National 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2007), at p. 13. See, e.g., on of Security Breach Personal of Privacy of April 2006 (hereinafter at pp. at note , at p. a of such in the United States and a of the number of individuals Privacy at IRS Rev. Proc. § See list of statutes in the Appendix. on for Access to Information and Part of A to Appendix, at 12 C.F.R. Part 30 (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part (FDIC), and 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift 29, Vol. No. 29, at p. (hereinafter the maintains personal information that the not in the laws the to the or of the information, than the individuals of any of the security of the See, e.g., Code § Rev. Stat. § Code, § Stat. § Code § 2007 The also any combination of of information that to or the such as and or and See, e.g., Breach to the of & Financial Services, December 15 USC Section This that with the of at 15 USC Section and are of in this and are of in this See, and of a Duty to Information Security Computer & L. See and to Law the Protection of Personal BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, 19, p. May See at on the of the Framework for Electronic and Services, with focus on the 26, available at Science and Technology Committee, House of Internet of July 24, at Para. of the Privacy of Canada, for in to Privacy available at See Privacy Breach of the Privacy available at Privacy available at See, of the Privacy to the Law of February at available at Available at Available at to information to state

The relationship between the protection of intellectual property (IP) and human rights has been examined in a growing number of publications. Most focus on the substantive law overlaps, interfaces, tensions and maybe even conflicts between the two areas of law – be it on the national, regional (e.g. European) or international plane. This contribution does not purport to advance this debate on substantive intersections – such as access to medicines under the right to health versus patent protection for pharmaceutical products. Instead, it focuses on the legal mechanisms and approaches to address some of these intersections between the two systems. In that way, it builds on the discourses concerning fragmentation, regime interaction and global legal pluralism that offer different narratives on how specific areas of international law view, define and delineate their relations to another.Within this context, the contribution focuses on the direct and indirect conflict avoidance and resolution approaches adopted by the two main European Courts which have been increasingly asked to rule on cases where intellectual property (IP) protection and human rights are intersecting. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are both charged with examining the consistency of national laws and measures with human rights protection for IP. Both courts are equally confronted with cases where national IP protection and enforcement measures are argued to interfere and conflict with other human rights, such as freedom of expression and information, the right to privacy or to conduct one’s own business. In reviewing the decisions of the two courts in these areas, this contribution highlights the range of tools and approaches available for human right law to deal with its various interfaces with IP protection.

The rapid development of technology creates various new things that can make human life easier, one of which is the cyber world which involves the internet. The presence of the cyber world brings many benefits to human life, with cyber, humans can do various things without being limited by distance and time. However, apart from bringing many positive things, the presence of the cyber world certainly creates new opportunities for crime, one of the threats in the cyber world is personal data. Indonesia and Japan, two countries that have significant economic and technological development in the Asian region, are not immune from the threat of personal data theft. Although both have different legal and cultural frameworks, both strive to protect the personal data of their citizens from increasingly complex cyber threats. In this way, a comparison will be made regarding the crime of personal data theft between Indonesia and Japan starting from the cultural history of respecting personal data in each country, the birth of regulations in each country, the criminal law system in each country, and also the regulations governing and has criminal sanctions in each country. The methodology used in this writing is a normative research. It is concluded that theft of personal data poses a significant challenge in the digital era, causing identity fraud, financial loss, and privacy violations. Indonesia and Japan, both Asian nations, have varying legal frameworks but both strive to protect citizens' data from cyber threats. Indonesia's regulations, passed in 2008, cover information and electronic transactions, intellectual property rights, and protection. Japan, on the other hand, has been addressing data protection since 2000, with regulations like APPI, My Number Act, and Act on Prohibition of Unauthorized Computer Access.

The article is devoted to issues of international legal principles in the field of implementation and protection of intellectual property objects in the aspect of influence on the processes of law enforcement and law-making in the field of criminal law of domestic legal systems. It is determined that the following are important for the criminal protection of intellectual property rights: the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), the Convention on Cybercrime, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration to them, and others. The relevance of this issue is due to the fact that, taking into account the processes of globalization of the world economy, as well as the process of integration of the legal systems of the countries of the world, the study of the international principles of criminal and legal protection of intellectual property is of great importance at the current stage of Ukraine’s development. The author determines that the concept of “intellectual property” should be understood as a type of property as a generic concept. Based on the analysis of the norms of international acts on the criminal protection of intellectual property rights, a number of problems have been identified that must be resolved in legislation, as well as legal science and practice. These problems include: 1) the problem of determining in which sections of the criminal codes the norms establishing criminal liability for infringement of intellectual property rights should be located. It is proposed to combine the norms establishing criminal liability for infringement of intellectual property rights into one section “Criminal offenses against intellectual property” in the Criminal Code of Ukraine; 2) the problem of determining which objects of intellectual property should be protected by the norms of criminal law. Key words: criminal liability, intellectual property, criminal legal protection, World Intellectual Property Organization, European Union.

From a legal perspective, analyze the connotation and logical relationship of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, point out the Legal dilemma in protecting Emei martial arts intellectual property rights, and then propose solu-tions to the problems. The study believes that the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts refer to the intellectual property rights based on the intellec-tual achievements and commercial logos of Emei martial arts. The legal dilemma in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts mainly manifests as follows: the identity of the rights subject of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts and the intangible cultural heritage of Emei martial arts is the root cause of the conflict between public and private interests; to some extent, the sports nature of the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts has influenced the legal recognition of this part of Emei martial arts intel-lectual property rights in the academic community; the inadequacy of the legal system is the fundamental reason why the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts are difficult to obtain comprehensive protection. Based on this, the study proposes that technological innovation is a logical prerequisite for the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. It can be achieved by extracting the classic techniques of Emei martial arts, constructing repre-sentative martial arts routines, and creating Emei martial arts competition pro-jects; The improvement of the legal system is the legal foundation for the pro-tection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. In this process, it is necessary to particularly strengthen the important position and role of the Sports Law in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, and improve the basic position and auxiliary function of relevant intellectual property laws in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts; The enrichment of theory is a powerful argument for the protection of in-tellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. Strengthening theory must be combined with the characteristics of sports, in order to build a solid legal foun-dation for the protection of the object of rights. In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts should focus on benefits, which requires balancing public and private interests and promoting the realization of public welfare through private rights protection

For a long time, scholars and governments had been dealing with the question of whether there is a nexus between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and economic development, and if so, how strong is the link. From the studies done until now, we have clearly indicated that the impact of IPRs is a complex issue and significantly varies across industries and across development stages. The conclusions of the economic literature are ambiguous: some studies conclude that this connection is apparently strong, while others conclude the connection of IPRs and economic development to be fairly weak. Nevertheless, the income of the country is an important determinant while analyzing the impact of IPRs on economic growth of a country. The effect of IPRs protection on growth depends upon the level of development. It is positively and significantly related to growth for low-and high-income countries, but not for middle-income countries. This suggests that, although IPRs connection is quite significant for high-income and low-income countries, middle-income countries are not a typical case of it.The study looks at the impact of intellectual property rights on the economic growth for the case of the Republic of North Macedonia. To address some of the issues concerning IPRs, this study defines what Intellectual Property Rights are, their definition, history, protection, regime, their instruments, international and national laws etc. It also attempts to evaluate the relationship between the protection of intellectual property and economic activity in the Republic of North Macedonia.Despite many inquiries into this particular field, it is important to accentuate that there is less research made on intellectual property rights and economic growth that is focused on data in a transitional context. Therefore, there is a significant gap in this area, which is evident from the dispersed regulation of the intellectual property rights in the Republic of North Macedonia. Put differently, there is no State Office for Intellectual Property, but State Office for Industrial Property. This makes research in this field even more complicated.In the case of the Republic of North Macedonia this is a highly new prosperous field where less research is done. Therefore, the research results will highly contribute regarding this field to the country and its government regarding the economic development of the country as well as the establishment of the new sphere such as intellectual property.Results of econometric modeling and the analysis of gathered data will provide the empirical evidence for the nexus between intellectual property rights and economic growth of the Republic of North Macedonia. Moreover, the research will discuss the reform of IPR’s regime and will offer recommendations for their enforcement and administration.

Unlike conventional methods and technologies of collecting, processing and analysing the personal data of natural persons as part of law enforcement activities, the broader use of different artificial intelligence methods brings into focus the need for specific rules regulating the application of various artificial intelligence methods to protect two independent fundamental rights as regulated by EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 7 and 8 – data protection and privacy. Privacy, the protection of personal data and the security of their processing and transmission within law enforcement activities, whether it is non-automated, partially or fully automated, is prescribed by Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data. When considering personal data protection in the context of Directive 2016/680 it is referred to the protection of information on the confirmed identity of a natural person (data protection) and the protection of all information by which identity can be confirmed (privacy). Thus, this information should not be part of the defined personal data category, and all methods and technologies that can be used for direct and indirect confirmation of the identity of a natural person should be taken into account. The paper aims to determine whether there is relationship between privacy and security and whether there are differences in the personal data collection, processing and analysis methods by law enforcement authorities, when used methods are conventional or artificial intelligence. The first hypothesis emphasises causality between privacy and security when collecting, processing and analysing their personal data by conventional methods and artificial intelligence methods for law enforcement purposes. The second hypothesis implies a statistically significant difference in making personal data available to law-enforcement bodies in cases they are collected, processed and analysed by conventional methods and in cases they are collected, processed or analysed by artificial intelligence methods. The methods used are: descriptive method for describing the process of collecting, processing and analysing personal data in law enforcement activities, as well as for describing the differences between conventional and artificial intelligence methods and evaluating hypotheses; induction for creating hypothesis; deduction for observing specific relations; content analysis and synthesis in the evaluation phase; survey method; statistical and comparative method in the testing phase and for determining the compliance with the hypotheses.

The Quest for Information Privacy in Africa: A Review Essay

The article examines the current state of legislation governing the protection of personal data, the challenges arising in its implementation, and the prospects for improving the protection mechanism through the use of blockchain technology. Frequent cases of unlawful dissemination of personal data in Kazakhstan are directly linked to unresolved issue of cybersecurity and the need to address vulnerabilities in the existing legislation, which underscores the relevance of the chosen research topic. The purpose of this study is to establish a legal framework for the protection and security of personal data through the use of digital technologies. The scientific novelty of this work lies in the fact that, for the first time since the formation of the legislative framework governing personal data in the Republic of Kazakhstan, legal norms regarding personal data have been defined, as well as areas of legal regulation for the circulation of certain types of personal data. Measures to improve existing legislation governing the circulation of personal data have been proposed. The above constitutes a national scientific doctrine in the field of personal data protection. New practical conclusions have been summarized, allowing for the improvement of existing national legislation and, consequently, their application in legislative activity. The research methods used include a general logical approach (induction, deduction), systematization, analysis, formulation, scientific methods, and empirical methods. Ensuring the security of personal data is a state obligation arising from the duty to protect individual human rights; therefore, the authors emphasize the particular importance of strengthening control over digital threats and introducing a procedure for assessing their impact on human rights in accordance with international standards. The study concludes that the Republic of Kazakhstan should accede to international instruments establishing standards for the protection of personal data. A potential pathway for strengthening the legal framework on personal data protection lies in establishing systemic safeguards that restrict unauthorized access to information. Such mechanisms should operate across all levels of data governance, ensuring consistent compliance among data holders, processors and supervisory entities. Based on the results of the research, it is proposed to adopt a legal norm regulating continuous control and monitoring by data owners, operators, and persons responsible for organizing the processing and storage of personal data.