User:Prizmic/sandbox

Information Privacy Article Response

 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * It seems like each fact or claim is not always referenced. For example, the sentence "there are millions of users on Facebook and its regulations have changed. People may be tagged in photos or have valuable information exposed about themselves either by choice or, most of the time, unexpectedly by others" is not followed by a proper citation. Another example of a claim without a reference is, "corporations may use this information to target individuals with marketing customized towards those individual's personal preferences" located in the Financial section. Most paragraphs, however, are followed by a citation that leads to a reliable reference.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * It seems like the article offers a lot of weight to the Safe Harbor program, while discussing other laws in much less detail. It just goes so in depth into that specific program; it is a bit distracting and takes away from the bigger picture of information privacy. It is a useful example of information privacy discussion in the real word, but it seems like it should only be mentioned briefly here. It should be its own article if there is that much to say about it.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article fairly addresses the different types of information. Based again on how much detail goes into the Safe Harbor program section, it seems like the article is biased toward US-European points of view. It is a very Western-centric article that could probably be improved by offering different frames of information privacy from other countries.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * A lot of the information seems to be coming from online newspapers and articles that have not been peer reviewed. These articles are more for public and popular audiences, rather than scholarly or academic readers. One source is a homework-help website where it seems anyone can ask a question and receive a perhaps not so reliable answer. A lot of the links lead to unreliable looking websites filled with pop up ads. There are also sources like the European Commission that seem more reliable, but the link does not lead to anything. They might be outdated.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * I think US viewpoints are over represented. Again, that entire section on Safe Harbor just seems like too much. Its significance to the bigger picture should be explained, otherwise it seems like an overly detailed description that belongs on its own page.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * No, a lot of the links do not work. They lead to "the information you are seeking has moved" pages.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I think more source-based information could be included in the Internet section, especially in regards to social media platforms. Overall, the sources used should be re-evaluated as many of them do not seem entirely reliable.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * No, a lot of the links do not work. They lead to "the information you are seeking has moved" pages.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I think more source-based information could be included in the Internet section, especially in regards to social media platforms. Overall, the sources used should be re-evaluated as many of them do not seem entirely reliable.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I think more source-based information could be included in the Internet section, especially in regards to social media platforms. Overall, the sources used should be re-evaluated as many of them do not seem entirely reliable.

Internet censorship in Singapore Article Response

 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. The History section in particular does a clear job of ensuring each fact has a source.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. The article read like a succinct and clearly organized summary of Internet censorship in Singapore.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral, and any claims or frames that appear biased in one direction are clearly referenced to ensure that readers understand this point of view belongs to a specific individual or group. The authors of the article do an effective job in including the name of the person or group in the sentence that presents a biased claim.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * A lot of the information comes from news websites. The reliability of the article could probably be improved by using more scholarly and peer-reviewed sources. That being said, however, a lot of the facts in the article are fairly recent, and therefore scholarly sources may not be available yet.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the article is very factual and does a good job of presenting government and private individuals' viewpoints.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Some of the links lead to pages that do not exist. There does not seem to be plagiarism in the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * To the best of my knowledge, everything seems up to date. I think the article could use a more detailed history, as well as a clearer timeline for when Singapore introduced certain changes. A clearer list of the currently banned websites would also be beneficial to the overall organization of the article.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Some of the links lead to pages that do not exist. There does not seem to be plagiarism in the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * To the best of my knowledge, everything seems up to date. I think the article could use a more detailed history, as well as a clearer timeline for when Singapore introduced certain changes. A clearer list of the currently banned websites would also be beneficial to the overall organization of the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * To the best of my knowledge, everything seems up to date. I think the article could use a more detailed history, as well as a clearer timeline for when Singapore introduced certain changes. A clearer list of the currently banned websites would also be beneficial to the overall organization of the article.

Ideas for Privacy law article
My first idea for the article is to organize it based on regions. It is currently just a long list of countries, which is a bit cumbersome. So, I plan on organizing it based on continents/regions and also including the privacy laws of various intergovernmental/international/regional organizations, such as the UN and ASEAN. After I improve the organization of the page, I plan on adding more information under Singapore and Malaysia to start. Eventually, I hope to add more to Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries, but I think Singapore and Malaysia, two more developed countries, offer me a good starting point.

Annotated Bibliography

 * Belkhamza, Zakariya and Mohd. Adxwin Faris Niasin. 2017. “The Effect of Privacy Concerns on Smartphone App Purchase in Malaysia: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior." International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies 11(5):178-194.
 * This paper was written by researchers at the Universiti Malaysia Sabah and it was published in a scholarly, peer reviewed journal. It is a sociological, statistical study that employs a theoretical framework. The paper has two goals: offer insight into the issue of privacy concerns in relation to smartphone app purchases, and provide a better understanding of privacy concerns in relation to purchasing behavior among Malaysian smartphone users. The source references a lot of other scholarly studies, which improves its credibility and reliability. The authors used the Theory of Planned Behavior to examine various relationships between privacy concerns, purchase intention, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. They developed six different hypotheses and tested them using a five-point scale survey of 20-40 year olds. In the results, they find that most smartphone users are not very concerned with their privacy. The source is useful for my research but the profile of respondents creates some bias. They sent out 1200 questionnaires and only 457 people responded. Because the survey was voluntary, these respondents might be people who care more deeply about their smartphone privacy and therefore were more likely to respond. Thus, results may be skewed. Nevertheless, the methodology follows strict statistical procedure and the conclusions drawn are supported by the results of the survey. This source would be useful for researchers using statistics in their privacy research. I would not recommend it for legislation research because it goes too in depth into theory and the statistical terms were difficult to understand without prior statistics training. The targeted audiences are governments who can regulate the legality of apps, and companies such as Google and Apple who can improve app stores to provide more privacy protection. The paper reinforced my idea that smartphone users are not all that concerned with their privacy. It has not changed how I think about my topic. It is definitely more of a sociological study than a legal study. Perhaps more reference to Malaysian privacy law would make the source more suitable for my research. It is a good source, however, for people using a more theoretical, sociological framework for their project.
 * Keywords: smartphones, privacy, app store, Malaysia, theory, theoretical, statistics, statistical, sociology, survey, behavior, privacy concerns


 * Bhasin, Madan Lal. 2016. “Challenge of guarding online privacy: role of privacy seals, government regulations and technological solutions.” Socio-Economic Problems & the State 15(2):85-104.
 * This article was written by a professor at the Universiti Utara Malaysia. The paper begins with a general discussion about privacy concerns in the context of an increasingly connected and technological world society. He contrasts privacy versus security and offers a definition of privacy that mostly references UN conventions and US institutions such as the Federal Trade Commission. He defines privacy policy and trust seals in relation to online markets. Finally, he goes into separate analyses of privacy legislation in Australia, the USA, the EU, Canada, Japan, India, Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. He then offers recommendations for company privacy seals and improved government regulations, concluding with 6 practices for all organizations in this field. The source is very well organized and allows the reader to quickly find relevant information. Its purpose is to encourage privacy protection accountability among governments, privacy commissioners, organizations, and individuals. He argues that privacy professionals need to work together to protect privacy without restricting information flow. The source is not biased because it presents legislation and then draws a conclusion, while still allowing the audience to draw its own conclusion. The reading is dense but topic sentences and concluding sentences offer succinct summaries. Each country section is also very detailed. The targeted audience is most likely governments and organizations who the author argues need to work together to improve consumer privacy, but it is also useful for individuals who want to learn more about their own privacy rights and protections. This source is perfect for my research as it outlines various policies in different countries and intergovernmental organizations. It will help me assemble a beginning collection of privacy legislation in various countries. The section on the UN is also particularly useful. Although the author is making an argument, I feel the source is more informational than persuasive.
 * Keywords: privacy concerns, security, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), United Nations (UN), Singapore, Malaysia, European Union (EU), privacy seals, government regulation, technological, legislation


 * Bignami, Francesca. 2011. “Cooperative Legalism and the Non-Americanization of European Regulatory Styles: The Case of Data Privacy.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 59(2):411-461.
 * This paper was written by a law professor from George Washington University. She argues that European regulatory systems are moving toward a model based on “cooperative legalism”, which involves industry self-regulation and deterrence-based regulation enforcement. She denies the claim that the European system is coming to represent the litigious and punitive American regulatory system. The goal is to understand where this cooperative legalism is coming from and why it is emerging now. The article offers a historical evaluation of regulatory styles as understood by a theoretical framework in the contexts of the US and Europe. Bignami chose data privacy as her policy case and traces the changes of this policy area in European countries. She examines historical and contemporary policies in France, Germany, Italy, and Britain, and then offers an evaluation of how technological change has transformed the marketplace. A reader would learn about the different regulatory bodies in these countries, specifically in relation to data privacy. The paper is very Eurocentric, but acknowledges that further comparative research must be done, especially in regards to how other countries accept or reject foreign innovation. The source is useful for those looking for more historical background about the actual institutions that enforce policies in each of the countries discussed. It is not so much a paper about privacy policy, but rather one on the theories and explanations behind different countries’ institutions. The targeted audience is definitely law researchers or students who are studying regulatory institutions because the author is arguing that a popular theory about European regulatory systems is actually incorrect. The source was dense and used a legal, theoretical framework to examine each country. It definitely taught me a lot about the nature of different regulatory system and has made me wonder what the system is like in Southeast Asian countries. This source might not be great for my research, but it has opened a door for further research into regulatory styles that I did not realize existed. I might be able to use it as background information on the general construction of regulatory systems, but that might deserve its own Wikipedia page. It does affirm my assumption that there is a lack of research on Asian countries.
 * Keywords: regulation, regulatory system, policy, European policy, legislation, data privacy


 * Butt, Leslie. 2011. “Can you keep a secret? Pretences of confidentiality in HIV/AIDS counseling and treatment in eastern Indonesia.” Medical Anthropology 30(3):319-338.
 * This paper was written by an associate professor at the University of Victoria and was published in a medical journal. The author argues that medical clinics in Papua, Eastern Indonesia, are failing to protect their clients’ confidentiality and privacy rights. Instead, these clinics are more interested in labeling clients as HIV positive or negative and sorting them into groups to determine successes and failures of treatment. The author examines the idea of confidentiality in healthcare and argues that failure to keep a secret is widespread in medical humanitarian work. The author goes into detail on how clinics and confidentiality should work, and then how it is actually practiced. The study is based off of interviews of VCT staff, analyses of training documents, observance of teaching seminars, and a participant observation. Thus, the information seems to come from firsthand experience and observation and is reliable. The source may be biased, but it offers a valuable examination into this particular Indonesian community. This paper would be useful for those studying privacy in relation to healthcare, especially in developing regions that receive a substantial amount humanitarian aid and assistance. I think the author is writing this for those who are in charge of defining global mandates for this practice in order to call attention to the failures of the system. The reading is not difficult, and it does go into detail of AIDS treatment. I do not think this source would be useful for my research topic because it does not really go into privacy law or policy. It does offer an interesting humanitarian-aid perspective that I would like to learn more about. It is more relevant for health related research. It talks about the responsibilities of governments and international organizations in the context of medical care, especially humanitarian based care, but does not offer any concrete policy or resolution examples related to confidentiality.
 * Keywords: AIDS, healthcare, medical, confidentiality, Indonesia, humanitarian aid


 * Chandran, Ravi. 2000. “Privacy in Employment.” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 2000(1):263-297.
 * This article was written by an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore and was published in the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. Its goal is to examine whether an employee has a legal right of privacy in employment, and if not, whether privacy can be enforced in another indirect way in Singapore. It is divided into four sections: introduction, breach of confidence claims, implied term of trust and confidence, and conclusion. The author begins by explaining why there is an absence of privacy legislation in Singapore, which is hugely important for my research. He explains how countries part of the Commonwealth, that is, former British colonies, typically follow British common law precedents and lack any explicit laws on privacy. Instead, the right to privacy must be enforced indirectly. The author attempts to understand to what extent there is a right of privacy for employees in Singapore. The author focuses on actions for breach of confidence and for breach of an implied term of a contract as indirect methods of retaining privacy. This article is very well organized and offers a complete understanding as to why Singapore privacy laws are the way they are. The author references court cases and ensures that the source is reliable. The source might be useful for employees in Singapore who want to learn more about their rights, as it goes through steps for each breach claim and explores every aspect of privacy in the workplace. It is also a useful source for employers who want to avoid these claims. The source taught me a lot about privacy law in Singapore and why I was having so much trouble finding legislation on privacy. It will be very useful for my research. I will be able to reference some of the court cases as well as provide a more detailed historical background in order to explain the development of privacy laws in Singapore.
 * Keywords: Singapore, employment, employee, employer, privacy, right of privacy, legislation, legal, class action


 * Chesterman, Simon. 2012. “After Privacy: The Rise of Facebook, the Fall of WikiLeaks, and Singapore’s ‘Personal Data Protection Act 2012.’” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 391-415.
 * This article was written by a law professor from National University of Singapore and was published in the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, thus establishing its credibility. The paper is divided into 5 sections: introduction, the changing context of debates over privacy, the efforts to produce a theory of privacy, data protection, and Singapore’s data protection law. The author explores the rise of Facebook and WikiLeaks in relation to how information is produced, stored, and shared today. The paper goes into detail about Singapore’s previous privacy situation in relation to common law procedures, and how the government has moved to a more legislative approach. The argument regarding Singapore is that the driving force is not a concern over privacy but rather is the commercial realities of international information economies. He also argues that privacy laws and data protection must move from limitation to regulation.  The source is very well organized and is directly relevant to my topic of study. It offers historical explanations for why Singapore privacy laws are set up the way they are. The source is very useful, and like all sources, probably contains some bias, but it does a good job of painting a factual picture. The bias in the arguments comes from analysis of policies, but the policies are clearly presented. The targeted audience seems to be other academics studying privacy law, especially since it is arguing for the creation of a solid theory of privacy and it references the debates over privacy. The source is useful for privacy law researchers in general, as well as those interested in Singapore. I am not really making an argument in my research; this article does contribute to my knowledge of privacy laws though. It will be helpful for writing about Singapore. It is definitely a legal, academic paper, which makes it a bit difficult to read, but it is divided into short sections that make it easier to absorb.
 * Keywords: Facebook, WikiLeaks, Singapore, Personal Data Protection Act, theory of privacy, information, technology, policy, legislation


 * Chik, Warren B. 2013. “The Singapore Personal Data Protection Act and an assessment of future trends      in data privacy reform.” Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of       Technology Law and Practice 29(5):554-575.
 * This paper was written by a researcher from the School of Law at Singapore Management University. It is an evaluation of Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act. The author compares and contrasts this piece of legislation with other similar developments in the region and with international privacy standards. In the second half of the paper, the author speculates about future data privacy trends and the development of privacy as a study in Singapore and internationally. He examines the greater need for privacy protection laws, various advancements made in Asia, and then goes specifically into the PDPA. This is an academic law paper meant for government officials, as it ends with an assessment of international trends and proposals for the improvement of data privacy laws. The paper is well organized under clear subheadings. The PDPA is mostly concerned with protecting individuals’ privacy from businesses. The source is pretty objective, is it lays out the history and current state of privacy legislation in Singapore and elsewhere. There is some theoretical framework relating to consent that is a bit difficult to understand without any background knowledge. It is clearly a technical, jargon heavy paper. It would be useful for understanding Singapore’s privacy history. I would not recommend it to others because of its density and length. It is helpful, however, for comparing Singapore’s law to other Asian countries and even to EU and US standards. The author is trying to convince his audience of a set of recommendations, which explains the depth the paper goes into. I could probably use this source for my research as it provides a lot of information about Singapore and the specifics of the PDPA. This paper could also be particularly useful for consumer privacy specifically.
 * Keywords: Singapore, Personal Data Protection Act, law, legal, policy, legislation, privacy protection


 * Greenleaf, Graham. 2009. “Five years of the APEC Privacy Framework: Failure or promise?” Computer Law and Security Review: The International Journal of Technology and Practice 25(1):28-43.
 * This article was written by a researcher from the University of New South Wales. The author argues that the APEC Privacy Framework is imperfect and has been basically ineffective since its adoption by APEC in 2004. According to Graham, the Framework was not properly implemented in developing countries and therefore has had little impact on developing legislation policies. The Framework needs to move away from American standards toward more regional or European standards. The article outlines the APEC Framework and critiques its principles and implementation. In the conclusion, it offers alternatives for Asia-Pacific privacy. This is an academic, public policy source. The source is about APEC’s failure to implement an effective privacy regulation and protection framework. Graham is writing this paper for those responsible for the creation of the policy and who may be working on future policy, which is why he includes specific suggestions for alternative future paths at the end. It is a useful source for APEC research. It definitely achieves its purpose of demonstrating the weaknesses of the Framework. I would recommend it for others interested in this research. It is also very long and dense and is not casual reading. This source convinced me that I should include APEC in my research project under its own specific regional section. It has also made me wonder where ASEAN stands in respect to privacy legislation. Again, the font is very small and the article is quite long, but it goes into extreme depth about APEC and clearly lays out its purpose in the introduction. It provides specific case studies which are useful. The section on cross-border privacy rules is particularly useful for examining different APEC countries’ stances on the policy. The source has also made me think whether I should focus more on regional organizations’ privacy policy, as it seems individual countries in Southeast Asia are just barely beginning to create privacy policy.
 * Keywords: APEC, Privacy Framework, regional organization, privacy standards, international, legislation, policy


 * Greenleaf, Graham. 2012. “Independence of data privacy authorities (Part 1): International standards.” Computer Law & Security Review 28(1):3-13.
 * This article was written by a researcher from the University of New South Wales. It evaluates the independence of data privacy authorities in order to determine if there is a relationship between degree of independence and effectiveness in privacy protection. Graham first uses international standards as the baseline measurement for independence, then uses countries in the Asia Pacific region. Independence is defined as both independence from the government and from the private sector. He examines guidelines from the OECD, the UN, and the EU, with the EU examination being the longest and most detailed. He then explores various regional privacy agreements. Part II of this study concludes that DPAs with more independence are more effective at providing privacy protection. The source is useful and the information is reliable. This author specializes in the Southeast Asian and Asia Pacific policy. Because he is making an argument, the source does have bias, but he supports his claims with evidence based on reliable scholarly sources. This source was short and easier to read than Graham’s other paper. The piece is not theoretical, but rather is based on actual case studies. I appreciate that Graham uses older, better established international organizations as a baseline for comparison with other emerging regional bodies. This source will be useful for my analysis on regional privacy bodies in Southeast Asia. Although, it may not be entirely useful for Wikipedia since it does not really reference specific policies but rather examines the concept of independence of DPAs through the use of case studies. I think I should evaluate Part II of the paper, which is a separate source, in order to gain more information about how DPAs have been implemented in different countries in the region. Ultimately, I appreciate that this source clearly presents its argument and purpose for the reader.
 * Keywords: data privacy authorities, international, United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), Southeast Asia, Asia Pacific, privacy, government, private sector, OECD


 * Hew, Khe Foon, and Wing Sum Cheung. 2012. “Use of Facebook: A Case Study of Singapore Students’ Experience.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 32(2):181-196.
 * This article was written by researchers from the National Institute of Education in Singapore. Its goals are to understand why Singapore students use Facebook, learn what type of people they contact through Facebook, and examine how they manage their online privacy. The authors specifically point out that most Facebook and online privacy studies regarding students have been US-Euro centric, so another purpose of their paper is to present this Southeast Asian perspective. Results found that Facebook is used mostly for social purposes, students contact existing known friends, and they manage their privacy with profile visibility settings. The article begins with a background of Facebook, a summary of prior student-Facebook studies, and then moves into the authors’ methodology, results, and conclusion. The study sampled 83 students, 23 males and 60 females between 15 to 23 years old, all Chinese. They acknowledge that they purposefully used snowball sampling, which might have created bias and which they acknowledge as a limitation. Other than that, the statistical methods used are sound. They include a chart with the percentile breakdown of motive for using Facebook. They found that a sizable amount of students were not concerned with their online privacy, and that those who did use more private settings were still placing their privacy at risk. They also found that many students were comfortable with adding strangers as friends. The paper is written for educators and researchers who are attempting to better understand Facebook use among Asian students, and the effects it has on privacy, education, and safety. Although this article was a very interesting, easy to read, sociological study, I do not think I will be able to use it for my research topic. Its only mentions of policy are in relation to Facebook’s privacy policy, which could be interesting for another topic. This paper effectively filled a gap in social media research among students.
 * Keywords: Facebook, Singapore, students, online privacy, safety, survey, sample, education, social media


 * Llanillo, Llewellyn L., and Khersien Y. Bautista. 2017. “Zones of Privacy: How Private?” Defense Counsel Journal 1-27.
 * This article was written by two attorneys from Philippine law firms and it was published in an international law journal. Its goal is to explore the implications of the relationship between the individual’s right to privacy and the state’s right as a police power to protect public interest and state security. It contrasts privacy rights to public interest, especially in the context of laws that are meant to protect the state from threats. They divide the article into an examination of 7 specific policies. Before this, however, they begin with an analysis of the right to privacy under Philippine law. They examine the different types of privacy included in this right, the different contexts in which it can be found such as the workplace, and the state’s police power, which they argue is the most pervasive of the state’s three powers. They conclude that rights of privacy are not absolute, and that the state has a right to balance individual privacy with public safety and welfare concerns. This paper also specifically makes reference to the new threats that arise with technological advancements, and how privacy must be sacrificed in these instances for the greater good of public safety. They also found that an increase in police power necessitates an increase in legislation to protect rights to privacy. The source is very useful for my research because it presents specific examples of legislation in the Philippines and it does not rely on a theoretical framework. The intended audience is most likely fellow attorneys and researchers of privacy rights in relation to legislation and policy. The source is well organized and easy to read. It is a good mix between a legal study and a political study, which I find very interesting. The use of specific examples of policies and understanding why and how those policies came to be will be important for my research. The discussion on technological advancements is also salient, and I have noticed that a lot of papers discussing privacy also discuss technology.
 * Keywords: Philippines, privacy, legislation, policy, technology, state, government, police power, safety, security


 * Marvin, Lynn M. and Yohance Bowden. 2015. “Conducting U.S. Discovery in Asia: An Overview of E- Discovery and Asian Data Privacy Laws.” Richmond Journal of Law & Technology 21(4):1-55.
 * This paper was written by New York attorneys specializing in data privacy law. It is concerned with business litigation done by Asian corporations in America, and American corporations in Asia. It evaluates the current state of data privacy law in Asia under APEC. The authors stress that each individual country has its own specific set of guidelines and legislation, so it is important to proceed carefully. They conclude that American attorneys doing pre-trial procedures in Asia for American clients consult with representatives in the specific Asian country to be sure that the correct guidelines are followed. The first half of the paper covers law procedures in the US, while the second half (beginning on page 19) dives into the current state of data privacy legislation in Asia and APEC. The intended audience is definitely attorneys who are doing this type of international work. The piece is very legal-technical, but the section on Asia and APEC will be useful for my research. It goes into depth on privacy law in different countries, including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Malaysia. The case studies will be very useful for my research. The paper is quite long, but the way the paper is organized will make it easy for me to return to the paper and go directly to the relevant section. I would recommend this paper for those interested in data privacy laws in the countries listed above. The authors do a complete job of making their point that each country has its own specific guidelines and thus attorneys must be careful in the litigation process. I do not want to go in depth into each of the countries and their data privacy laws here because it will be easy to return back to the paper for the details. Overall, I liked the paper and will definitely use it for my research.
 * Keywords: Litigation, Asia, APEC, America, data privacy, legal, law, discovery, pre-trial, China, Malaysia, Singapore


 * Mitsilegas, Valsamis. 2016. “Surveillance and Digital Privacy in the Transatlantic “War on Terror”: The Case for a Global Privacy Regime.” Columbia Human Rights Law Review 47(3):1-77.
 * The paper was written by a professor from Queen Mary University of London and it evaluates the state of mass surveillance in the United States and European Union in the context of the “War on Terror.” The paper is a comparative one that contrasts the US and EU frameworks on privacy protection. It argues that the European Union has a more effective privacy framework than the United States. It also argues that because of the increasingly global threat of terrorism and the interconnectedness of the world, states need to work to establish a global privacy regime. States should use the European Union’s structure as a model for this global privacy regime, as opposed to the United States’. The paper attempts to explain how certain aspects of globalized surveillance challenge the right to privacy. It offers a lot of historical background on each for the US and EU in relation to privacy regulation. They conclude with four key principles that outline the case for a global privacy regime. This paper would be useful for research on such a topic, but I do not think it will be very useful for my more country-specific research. If I do end up writing about the European Union, I may be able to use this paper. It was, however, extremely long and uses a lot of technical terms. It is not theoretical and is more case-study based. It would also be quite useful for those studying privacy in relation to terrorism, as this paper directly references action taken after September 11. It goes into extreme detail into US privacy laws post-9/11, so that could be useful information for someone else studying terrorism and privacy. The paper could also be used for human rights studies in relation to privacy. I do not think it will be very useful for my research though.
 * Keywords: surveillance, War on Terror, privacy, global, human rights, government, United States of America, European Union (EU)


 * Peng, Shin-Yi. 2003. “Privacy and the Construction of Legal Meaning in Taiwan.” The International Lawyer 37(4):1037-1054.
 * The author of this paper is a professor at a Taiwanese university and published in an international law journal. They are writing from the perspective of a periphery Chinese community, which is interesting because their goal is to construct a more inclusive legal meaning of privacy for all Chinese societies. Interestingly, the author makes this a cultural study as well as a legal study by contrasting Chinese and American views on privacy. Thus, the article examines private and public in a traditional Chinese society, the effectiveness of privacy policy in Taiwan, a better solution for protection, and finally concludes that Western ideas have had a great influence on Taiwan legal systems. The author argues that Chinese systems should stop borrowing from Western institutions, and should rather develop their own criteria. The paper goes into an analysis of various privacy and data protection laws in Taiwan. He argues that Taiwan has thus far failed to protect privacy, as demonstrated by several incidents such as the Smart Card debate. He also argues that the lack of an official recognition of a right to privacy by the Courts has proven detrimental to the country’s ability to protect privacy. Taiwan needs to strike a balance between Western privacy traditions and its own cultural ideology. This article was very interesting because it was not heavy on legal terminology and was also a cultural study. I was initially not going to consider Taiwan in my studies, but this article might have changed my mind. The island’s history in relation to mainland China is fascinating, and this article takes that into account. If I do end up including Taiwan, I will definitely use this article. It was fairly short and easier to read than some of the other more technical papers. Its use of theory was solidified with references to solid examples, which I appreciated. The paper actually directly ties into the issue of Westernization that I have been studying in my Chinese history classes. It is equal parts a sociological study, without the jargon and technicality that other sociology papers use, and a legal study.
 * Keywords: Taiwan, legal, law, theory, privacy, culture, China, Western


 * Ramasoota, Pirongrong and Sopak Panichpapiboon. 2014. “Online Privacy in Thailand: Public and Strategic Awareness.” Journal of Law, Information & Science 23(1):97-136.
 * This paper was written by two researches from Thailand universities and it was published in an international law journal. The study used surveys for general online users and interviews with social activists and civil society members. The goal of the paper is to gain an inquiry into privacy awareness among the population and advocacy by civil society groups in Thailand. Results found that privacy awareness and reaction to threats are influenced by social-demographics, attitudes, and online characteristics. Civil society groups responded that education was the best way to promote and advocate for online privacy awareness among the population. Civil society leaders responded that the lack of fair information practice privacy, national security issues, the state’s probing into private data, and “cyber lynching” were the biggest threats to privacy in Thailand. They also responded that Thailand in particular should use a human rights frame when advocating for education of privacy rights. The paper begins with evaluations of various privacy related laws in Thailand. They also discuss the causes for why a data protection law has failed to pass Cabinet approval. There are several tables included in the paper that show respondents had primarily collectivist attitudes, perceived social media as the most threatening application, and used social media campaigns to respond to and call out threats. Most respondents also argued that the passage of a personal data protection law will require public participation. Respondents also said that the right to privacy is equally as important as freedom of expression. The paper acknowledges the limitations of the study, such as the fact that respondents were mostly young students. Interestingly, the actual survey is included, which is useful in further analyzing whether the paper is based on a legitimate study. I found the paper very interesting and the study was easier to understand than some of the others I have encountered. I will most likely be able to use this source in my research as it goes into depth into Thailand’s current privacy legislation and the cultural reasons why privacy laws are lacking.
 * Keywords: Thailand, policy, legislation, social media, civil society, advocacy, privacy education, privacy awareness, online privacy, survey


 * Reidenberg, Joel R. 2000. “Resolving Conflicting International Data Privacy Rules in Cyberspace.”Stanford Law Review 52(5):1315-1371.
 * This paper was written by a law professor from Fordham University. The purpose of the article is to compare and contrast data privacy legislation between the United States and Europe. The author argues that a country adopts certain laws not only to protect privacy, but also to serve the country’s specific governance function. He categorizes each country as being based on liberal market-based governance, or socially protective, rights-based governance. He stresses the importance of international cooperation for effective data privacy laws, which are so different in each of the two types of countries. Reidenberg offers a specific conceptual framework for each country that will allow for cooperation without disturbing governance preference. He suggests that, eventually, an international treaty must be adopted to fully implement agreed upon principles. He examines data flow characteristics, international data privacy principles, online conflicts, governance choices in relation to privacy laws, co-regulation of information privacy, and strategies for cooperation. This paper was written for officials tasked with creating privacy legislation. The discussion of a country’s privacy laws depending on what type of governing norms they use was very interesting and something I had not considered before. Essentially, every country has a different goal when passing privacy legislation. In the United States, according to the article, the goal is to make commerce and exchange in an open market easier and protected. In Europe, rather, the goal is to protect people’s rights to privacy. This paper would be useful for a comparative US-Europe study. I can probably extract some information about the European Union from it for my research. I thought the political science point of view was very interesting and positively contributed to the author’s argument. The source was quite long and covered a lot of bases in regards to international privacy norms. The privacy policy that was discussed was more of an academic discussion; it was more based on ideal privacy principles rather than ones in use. It does, however, later go into how these ideal principles are being implemented in each country and organization, which is useful for my research.
 * Keywords: international, United States, Europe, European Union (EU), data privacy, commerce, Internet, governance, norms, strategy
 * Revolidis, Ioannis. 2017. “Judicial Jurisdiction over Internet Privacy Violations and the GDPR: A Case of ‘Privacy Tourism’?” Masaryk University Journal of Law & Technology 11(1):7-37.
 * This paper was written by a legal researcher from a German university. It evaluates the section on international litigation over online privacy violations in the General Data Protection Regulation. It specifically analyzes article 7(2). The author argues that the Court of Justice of the European Union has stretched the grounds of this particular article too far in an attempt to provide more protection to data subjects. The first part of the paper introduces the European legislator, and argues that it tends to treat data protection violations as separate from traditional private international acts. The second party of the paper examines international jurisdiction norms regarding online privacy violations. The author doubts the necessity of this article because of how far the Court has taken it beyond its intended jurisdiction. The article uses several court cases to support their argument. They later go into an analysis of how the EU legislation has impacted non-EU parties, and concludes that the EU article is too far-reaching and makes unreasonable jurisdiction claims. It has led to countries blocking foreign judgments, such as the United States’ Speech Act. This article seems it would be most useful for people specifically researching European Union legislation tendencies. It goes in depth into this specific article. It is an interesting study of this certain online data protection law, however, and might be useful for my article. It is definitely biased and is arguing a strong point. The facts and case law that it uses to support the argument may be useful for me. This article reminded me of my international relations class, and the idea of state sovereignty. The author is essentially saying that the EU act is overreaching and encroaching on other states’ jurisdiction. Thus, it is threatening state sovereignty. The intended audience of this paper is probably other legal scholars, as it does not clearly present an alternative for the EU, but rather it is more of a critique. It did not change my thinking but it did make me think of how these articles are connected to topics that I have been learning about in class. I can probably extract some information for my page.
 * Keywords: Conflict of Laws, International, Internet, Data protection law, regulation, European Union


 * Spiekermann, Sarah, and Alexander Novotny. 2015. “A vision for global privacy bridges: Technical and  legal measures for international data markets.” Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice 31(2):181-200.
 * This article was written by researchers from the Vienna University of Economic and Business. It addresses the phenomenon of online personal data trading by private businesses, which is often done without the consumer’s knowledge. Their paper revolves around the conflict of business demands for data and the consumer’s desire for protected privacy. The authors propose a solution that meets both of these concerns by studying technical and legal measures to create a four-space market model for personal data. They make reference to an analogy that equates personal data to oil; that is, personal data is currently the most valuable and sought after resource in the online business world. They argue that a lack of accountability and transparency from data collectors creates market concentration and impedes service innovation. They advocate for the creation of a new, separate personal information market that meets both consumers’ and business’ demands, which they suggest should be implemented using their model. The model if based on business and economic theory and principles. In the introduction, the authors make reference to the different privacy regulation approaches in the United States, Europe, and Asia, and how they lead to tensions that threaten the data market, but then they fail to more deeply examine those differences in the article. The paper does not really dive into actual policy and legislation being used. It is more of a theoretical economic paper that I do not think will be entirely useful for my research. Their purpose is to provide a framework that lawmakers should then implement under the specific conditions of their country. I would suggest this paper for people interested in the economic side of data privacy, who might want to understand the perspective of businesses who use data privacy in their models. The paper even takes on a philosophical tone in the conclusion when it discusses whether people’s privacy and information can actually be owned. Nevertheless, the paper was interesting but it was too heavy on economic and business models for my research.
 * Key words: information privacy, personal data market, economics, privacy regulation, global, international, business, data protection authorities


 * Tene, Omer. 2013. “Privacy Law’s Midlife Crisis: A Critical Assessment of the Second Wave of Global Privacy Laws.” Ohio State Law Journal 74(6):1217-1261.
 * This paper was written by a researcher from an Israeli university. It addresses the utility of the current information privacy framework, and argues that the current framework is being challenged by a surge in big data, social networks, and the migration of data to the cloud. It argues that the current policies and frameworks in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Union, and the United States have failed to resolve major dilemmas of information privacy that have been created by the three phenomena listed above. The author argues that this new generation of privacy makers must update the definition of person data and should use the role of consent in a more limited way. Policymakers should also dispose of the linear model that sees only the controller as in charge of the own privacy; with social media sites and phone applications, it is the platform provider that actually has control. Finally, these regulatory agencies must stop viewing information as existing in only one jurisdiction. The article does not provide solutions for these challenges but rather proposes future research and potential paths that can be taken by lawmakers. I think the article will be useful for my research as it outlines different policies that have been adopted by the 3 bodies listed above and then presents some of the weaknesses of the policies. It is not at theoretical paper, which I appreciated. The paper is well organized and sets out in the introduction what its goal is. The body of the paper continually makes reference to the primary arguments outlined in the introduction, which allows the audience to trace the argument efficiently. I can definitely use this paper for my research. I would recommend it for people interested in data privacy regulation at an international level. It is especially useful for understanding the flaws of the current system, although it does not suggest alternatives or improvements. Regardless, it will be useful for me.
 * Keywords: global, privacy protection, information, personal data, business, OECD, EU, US, regulation framework


 * Thomas, Mathews. 2004. “Is Malaysia’s MyKad the ‘one card to rule them all’? The urgent need to develop a proper legal framework for the protection of personal information in Malaysia.” Melbourne University Law Review 1-38.
 * This article was written by a researcher from a Malaysian university. The author’s argument is that Malaysia needs better personal data protection legislation and judicial recognition of a fundamental right to information privacy. He examines the multipurpose smart identification card MyKad, which Malaysia introduced in 2001. MyKad can store and share information, which Mathews argues is not properly protected by the existing legal framework in Malaysia. The paper is organized into seven sections. Following the introduction, the author examines how MyKad actually functions technologically and what exactly it is used for. Part 3 presents an analysis of the various types of misuse that might arise if the information stored in MyKad falls into the wrong hands. Part 4 examines how the current legal framework in Malaysia lacks sufficient protection for information privacy. In part 5, the author points out shortcomings of proposed data protection legislation and suggests improvements. In part 6, he argues that information privacy should be recognized as a human rights under the Malaysian Constitution. Section 7 is a restatement of the author’s argument. This article will be very useful for not only gathering information about MyKad as it relates to privacy concerns, but also for finding information on current privacy laws in Malaysia. In his analyses, the author examines existing privacy legislation, Common Law precedents, and Court decisions on privacy cases. He even dedicates a section to compare Malaysia’s current framework with India’s. Although the paper is very specific to this one example, it is a good reference for gathering information on privacy in Malaysia more generally. This article was clearly written for those in the legislature, as it is persuasive and aims to suggest improvements for privacy information legislation. It is well organized and the author’s argument can be clearly followed throughout the paper. I would recommend this article for people interested in Malaysian law, or even for people who are interested in different countries’ legal frameworks. I will be able to use this paper for my article.
 * Keywords: Malaysia, MyKad, information privacy, legal framework, regulation, protection, human rights, legislation

Improvement ideas for Privacy law article
My first step in improving the page will be to add more information to the "International legal standards on privacy" section. The next step will be to organize each country under a region heading. Directly below the region (North America, for example) I think I will include a "Regional legal standards on privacy" section where I can discuss specific codes that intergovernmental organizations have created, such as APEC. After placing the existing information under its correct regional heading, I will dive into privacy laws and codes for Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Taiwan. As I find any other sources for other Southeast Asian countries, I can also add more. I want to start with only a few countries so I can focus on those and not get overwhelmed as there are so many countries I could be researching.

List of other related Wiki pages

 * Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Singapore)
 * Information Privacy
 * Information Privacy Law


 * Malaysian identity card
 * Global Privacy Enforcement Network
 * APEC
 * EU
 * Federal Trade Commission
 * UN
 * OECD

ARTICLE DRAFT
(already basic background for some sections, this is just what I want to add, some terms are already linked on main page)

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
The voluntary APEC Privacy Framework was adopted by all 21 international member economies in 2004 in an attempt to improve information privacy and protection of flow of personal information between the countries. The Framework consists of nine Privacy Principles that act as minimum standards for privacy protection: Preventing harm, Notice, Collection limitation, Use of personal information, Choice, Integrity of personal information, Security safeguards, Access and correction, and Accountability.

In 2011, APEC implemented the APEC Cross Border Privacy Rules System with the goal of balancing "the flow of information and data across borders while at the same time providing effective protection for personal information, essential to trust and confidence in the online marketplace." The four agreed-upon rules of the System are based upon the APEC Privacy Framework, and include self-assessment, compliance review, recognition/acceptance, and dispute resolution and enforcement.

Council of Europe
The Council of Europe also addressed privacy protection in regards to the Internet in 1998 when it published "Draft Guidelines for the protection of individuals with regard to the collection and processing of personal data on the information highway, which may be incorporated in or annexed to Code of Conduct." The Council developed these guidelines in conjunction with the European Commission, and they were adopted in 1999.

European Union (EU)
The Data Protection Directive recognized the authority of National data protection authorities and required that all Member States adhere to universal privacy protection standards. Member States must adopt strict privacy laws that are no more relaxed than the framework provided by the directive. Additionally, non-EU countries must adopt privacy legislation of equal restriction in order to be allowed to exchange personal data with EU countries. Thus, the directive has also influenced the development of privacy legislation in non-European countries.

A notable contribution that will come from the General Data Protection Regulation is its recognition of a "right to be forgotten", which requires any group that collects data on individuals to delete the data related to an individual upon that individual's request. The Regulation was influenced by the aforementioned European Convention on Human Rights.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
In 1980, the OECD adopted the voluntary OECD Guidelines Governing Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data in response to growing concerns about information privacy and data protection in an increasingly technological and connected world. The OECD Guidelines helped establish an international standard for privacy legislation, most importantly by defining the term "personal data" and outlining fair information practice principles (FIPPs) that other countries have adopted in their national privacy legislation.

In 2007, the OECD adopted the Recommendation on Cross-border Co-operation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy. This framework is based on the OECD Guidelines and includes two cooperation based model forms to encourage the enforcement of privacy laws. It is also notable for coining the term "Privacy Enforcement Authority."

United Nations (UN)
On 18 December 2013, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 68/167 on the right to privacy in the digital age, which makes reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirms the fundamental and protected human right of privacy.

Malaysia
Following independence from Great Britain in 1957, Malaysia's legal system was based primarily on English common law. The following common law torts are related to personal information privacy and continue to play a role in Malaysia's legal system: breach of confidence, defamation, malicious falsehood, and negligence. In recent years, however, the Court of Appeal in Malaysia has referred less to English common law and instead looked more toward other nations with similar colonial histories and whose written constitutions are more like the Malaysian Constitution. Unlike the courts in these other nations, such as India's Supreme Court, the Malaysian Court of Appeal has not recognized a constitutionally protected right of privacy.

In June 2010, the Malaysian Parliament passed the Personal Data Protection Act 2010, and it came into effect in 2013. It outlines seven Personal Data Protection Principles that entities operating in Malaysia must adhere to: the General Principle, the Notice and Choice Principle, the Disclosure Principle, the Security Principle, the Retention Principle, the Data Integrity Principle, and the Access Principle. The Act defines personal data as "'information in respect of commercial transactions that relates directly or indirectly to the data subject, who is identified or identifiable from that information or from that and other information." A notable contribution to privacy law is the Act's distinction between personal data and sensitive personal data, which entails different protections. Although the Act does not apply to information processed outside the country, it does restrict cross-border transfers of data from Malaysia outwards. Additionally, the Act offers individuals the "right to access and correct the personal data held by data users", "the right to withdraw consent to the processing of personal data", and "the right to prevent data users from processing personal data for the purpose of direct marketing". Punishment for violating the Personal Data Protection Act can include fines or even imprisonment.

Other common law and occupation-specific laws that exist in Malaysia to protect confidential information include:
 * Official Secrets Act 1972
 * Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
 * Financial Services Act 2013
 * Islamic Financial Services Act 2013
 * Labuan Financial Services and Securities Act 2010
 * Labuan Islamic Financial Services and Securities Act 2010
 * Common law duty of bank confidentiality

Singapore
Singapore, like other Commonwealth jurisdictions, relies primarily on the common law, and the law of confidence is employed for privacy protection cases. For example, privacy can be protected indirectly through various common law torts: defamation, trespass, nuisance, negligence, and breach of confidence. In February 2002, however, the Singaporean government decided that the common law approach was inadequate for their emerging globalized technological economy. Thus, the National Internet Advisory Committee published the Model Data Protection Code for the Private Sector, which set standards for personal data protection and was influenced by the EU Data Protection Directive and the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy. In the private sector, businesses can still choose to adopt the Model Code, but in 2005 Parliament decided that Singapore needed a more comprehensive legislative privacy framework.

In January 2013, Singapore's Personal Data Protection Act 2012 came into effect in three separate but related phases. The phases continued through July 2014 and dealt with the creation of the Personal Data Protection Commission, the national Do Not Call Registry, and general data protection Rules. The Act's general purpose "is to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by organisations" while acknowledging the individual's right to control their personal data and the organizations' legal needs to collect this data. It imposes eight obligations on those organizations that use personal data: consent, purpose limitation, notification, access, correction, accuracy, protection/security, and retention. The Act prohibits transfer of personal data to countries with privacy protection standards that are lower than those outlined in the general data protection rules. The Personal Data Protection Commission is responsible for enforcing the Act, which is primarily a complaints-based system. The punishments for violating the Act can include being ordered by the Commission to stop collecting and using personal data, to destroy the data, or to pay a penalty of up to $1 million.

Singapore has also passed various sector-specific statutes that deal with privacy and personal information, including: There are also more specific acts for electronically stored information:
 * Banking Act
 * Statistics Act
 * Official Secrets Act
 * Statutory Bodies and Government Companies Act
 * Central Provident Fund Act
 * Telecommunications Act
 * Spam Control Act 2007
 * Electronic Transactions Act
 * National Computer Board Act
 * Computer Misuse Act

Taiwan
The right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Republic of China Constitution, but it can be protected indirectly through judicial interpretation. For example, article 12 of the Constitution states "the people shall have freedom of confidentiality of correspondence" while article 10 states "the people shall have freedom of residence and of change of residence." Along with several other articles that assert the Constitution's protection of freedoms and rights of the people, the Grand Justices are able to decide how privacy protection fits into the legal system. The Justices first made reference to privacy being a protected right in the 1992 "Interpretation of Council of Grand Justices No. 293 on Disputes Concerning Debtors' Rights."

In 1995, Taiwan passed the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act which was influenced by the OECD Guidelines and enforced by each separate Ministry depending on their industry sector responsiblity. It also only protected personal information managed by government agencies and certain industries. In 2010, Taiwan enacted the Personal Data Protection Act that laid out more comprehensive guidelines for public and private sectors and was still enforced by individual Ministries. In the Act, personal data is protected and defined as any "data which is sufficient to, directly or indirectly, identify that person", and includes data such as name, date of birth, fingerprints, occupation, medical records, and financial status, among many others.

A few other administrative laws also deal with communication-specific personal privacy protection: Additionally, chapter 28 of the Criminal Code outlines punishments for privacy violations in article 315, sections 315-1 and 315-2. The sections primarily address issues of search and seizure and punishment for wrongful invasion of privacy.
 * Telecommunications Act
 * Communications Protection and Surveillance Act

Finally, articles 18(I),184(I), and 195(I) of the Taiwanese Civil Code address the "personality right" to privacy and the right to compensation when one injures the "rights" of another, such as when someone uses another's name illegally.

Thailand
Thailand's unique history of being an authoritarian, buffer state during the Cold War and being under the constant threat of a coup d'état means that privacy laws have so far been limited in order to preserve national security and public safety. Thailand uses bureaucratic surveillance to maintain national security and public safety, which explains the 1991 Civil Registration Act that was passed to protect personal data in computerized record-keeping and data-processing done by the government.

The legislature passed the Official Information Act 1997 to provide basic data protection by limiting personal data collection and retention in the public sector. It defines personal information in a national context in relation to state agencies. Two communication technology related laws, the Electronic Transactions Act 2001 and the Computer Crime Act 2007, provide some data privacy protection and enforcement mechanisms. Nevertheless, Thailand still lacks legislation that explicitly addresses privacy security.

Thus, with the need for a more general and all-encompassing data protection law, the legislature proposed the Personal Data Protection Bill in 2013, which is heavily influenced by the OECD Guidelines and the EU Directive. The draft law is still under evaluation and its enactment date is not yet finalized.

Related pages

 * Information Privacy
 * Information Privacy Law
 * APEC
 * Council of Europe
 * EU
 * OECD
 * UN
 * Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Singapore)


 * Malaysian Parliament
 * Global Privacy Enforcement Network