Compartmentalised data protection in South Africa: The right to privacy in the Protection of Personal Information Act

Q3 Social Sciences South African law journal Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.47348/salj/v139/i2a8
Gilad Katzav
{"title":"Compartmentalised data protection in South Africa: The right to privacy in the Protection of Personal Information Act","authors":"Gilad Katzav","doi":"10.47348/salj/v139/i2a8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In European Union (‘EU’) law, the entrenched right to data protection is an independent fundamental right. EU case law has gradually disconnected the right to data protection from the right to a private life. South Africa’s first exclusive data protection legislation, the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (‘POPIA’), is redolent of EU data protection legislation. However, the stated purpose of the POPIA is to give effect to the right to privacy. This article examines whether the laws of data protection can be wholly encapsulated within s 14 of the Constitution. To this end, this article considers two main conceptions of privacy in our law. The first is Neethling’s informational privacy and the reasonable expectation of privacy. The second is Rautenbach’s theory of informational control over personal matters in relation to other rights. On either approach, I argue that the substantive provisions of the POPIA are irreducible to privacy protection alone. Ultimately, framing the POPIA exclusively within the domain of privacy will either (i) unduly restrict legislative interpretation; or (ii) the true meaning of privacy will be diluted, leading to legal uncertainty. To avoid this, I suggest distinguishing between the value of privacy in the POPIA and the actual loss of privacy.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i2a8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In European Union (‘EU’) law, the entrenched right to data protection is an independent fundamental right. EU case law has gradually disconnected the right to data protection from the right to a private life. South Africa’s first exclusive data protection legislation, the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (‘POPIA’), is redolent of EU data protection legislation. However, the stated purpose of the POPIA is to give effect to the right to privacy. This article examines whether the laws of data protection can be wholly encapsulated within s 14 of the Constitution. To this end, this article considers two main conceptions of privacy in our law. The first is Neethling’s informational privacy and the reasonable expectation of privacy. The second is Rautenbach’s theory of informational control over personal matters in relation to other rights. On either approach, I argue that the substantive provisions of the POPIA are irreducible to privacy protection alone. Ultimately, framing the POPIA exclusively within the domain of privacy will either (i) unduly restrict legislative interpretation; or (ii) the true meaning of privacy will be diluted, leading to legal uncertainty. To avoid this, I suggest distinguishing between the value of privacy in the POPIA and the actual loss of privacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分隔的数据保护在南非:隐私权在个人信息保护法
在欧洲联盟(“欧盟”)法律中,根深蒂固的数据保护权利是一项独立的基本权利。欧盟判例法逐渐将数据保护权与私人生活权分离开来。南非的第一个专属数据保护立法,即2013年的《个人信息保护法》(“POPIA”),与欧盟的数据保护立法有相似之处。然而,《公民隐私法》的既定目的是落实隐私权。本文探讨数据保护法律是否可以完全概括在《宪法》第14条之内。为此,本文考察了我国法律中隐私权的两个主要概念。首先是尼特林的信息隐私和对隐私的合理期望。第二个是劳滕巴赫关于个人事务与其他权利的信息控制理论。无论采用哪一种方法,我都认为《公民权利法》的实质性条款不能简化为仅保护隐私。最终,将《POPIA》完全限定在隐私领域将:(i)过度限制立法解释;或者(ii)隐私的真正含义被淡化,导致法律上的不确定性。为了避免这种情况,我建议区分POPIA中的隐私价值和隐私的实际损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A legislative framework for shareholder approval of political donations and expenditure by companies in South Africa Reflecting on the tension between the development of the common law and the doctrine of separation of powers in Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd Notes: The Krugersdorp gang rapes — Another Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S? Book Review: Tjakie Naudé & Daniel Visser (eds) The Future of the Law of Contract: Essays in Honour of Dale Hutchison (2021) The classification of a ‘maritime claim’ in South Africa under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1