首页> 外文期刊>Computer law & security report >EU GDPR or APEC CBPR? A comparative analysis of the approach of the EU and APEC to cross border data transfers and protection of personal data in the IoT era
【24h】

EU GDPR or APEC CBPR? A comparative analysis of the approach of the EU and APEC to cross border data transfers and protection of personal data in the IoT era

机译:欧盟GDPR或APEC CBPR?欧盟与APEC的方法的比较分析,以跨越边界数据传输和IOT时代的个人数据保护

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article examines the two major international data transfer schemes in existence today the European Union (EU) model which at present is effectively the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross Border Privacy Rules system (CBPR), in the context of the Internet of Things (IoT).While IoT data ostensibly relates to things i.e. products and services, it impacts individuals and their data protection and privacy rights, and raises compliance issues for corporations especially in relation to international data flows. The GDPR regulates the processing of personal data of individuals who are EU data subjects including cross border data transfers. As an EU Regulation, the GDPR applies directly as law to EU member nations. The GDPR also has extensive extraterritorial provisions that apply to processing of personal data out- side the EU regardless of place of incorporation and geographical area of operation of the data controller/ processor. There are a number of ways that the GDPR enables lawful international transfer of personal data including schemes that are broadly similar to APEC CBPR.APEC CBPR is the other major regional framework regulating transfer of personal data between APEC member nations. It is essentially a voluntary accountability scheme that initially requires acceptance at country level, followed by independent certification by an accountability agent of the organization wishing to join the scheme. APEC CBPR is viewed by many in the United States of America (US) as preferable to the EU approach because CBPR is considered more conducive to business than its counterpart schemes under the GDPR, and therefore is regarded as the scheme most likely to prevail.While there are broad areas of similarity between the EU and APEC approaches to data protection in the context of cross border data transfer, there are also substantial differences. This paper considers the similarities and major differences, and the overall suitability of the two models for the era of the Internet of Things (IoT) in which large amounts of personal data are processed on an on-going basis from connected devices around the world. This is the first time the APEC and GDPR cross-border data schemes have been compared in this way. The paper concludes with the author expressing a view as to which scheme is likely to set the global standard. (C) 2019 Clare Sullivan. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:本文介绍了今天存在的两大国际数据转移计划,目前目前的欧盟(欧盟)模式有效地是一般数据保护规范(GDPR),以及亚太经济合作(APEC)跨境隐私规则系统(在事物互联网上(物联网)的上下文中的CBPR)。当IoT数据表面上涉及物品,即产品和服务,它会影响个人及其数据保护和隐私权,并提高企业的合规问题,特别是与国际数据相关流动。 GDPR规范了作为欧盟数据受试者的个人数据的处理,包括跨境数据转移。作为欧盟规定,GDPR直接将法律视为欧盟成员国。 GDPR还具有广泛的域外条款,该条款适用于欧盟的个人数据处理,无论数据控制器/处理器的数据控制器的地理区域和地理区域。 GDPR有许多方式使得合法的国际数据转移包括与APEC CBPR.APEC CBPR广泛类似的计划是调控APEC成员国之间个人数据转移的其他主要区域框架。它基本上是一项自愿责任计划,最初要求在国家一级接受,其次是希望加入该计划的组织负责人的独立认证。 APEC CBPR被许多美国(美国)在欧盟(美国)中观察到欧盟方法,因为CBPR被认为比GDPR下的同行计划更有利于业务,因此被认为是最有可能普遍的计划。欧盟与APEC之间存在广泛的相似性,在跨境数据传输的背景下对数据保护的方法,也存在显着差异。本文考虑了相似性和重大差异,以及两种模型的互联网时代(物联网)的整体适用性,其中大量个人数据从世界各地的连接设备的持续处理。这是第一次通过这种方式比较APEC和GDPR跨境数据方案。本文与作者结束了,表达了哪个方案可能设定全球标准的观点。 (c)2019 Clare Sullivan。 elsevier有限公司出版。保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号