明确 POPIA 中跨境共享健康数据的法律要求:关于《研究行为守则》草案的建议

IF 0.5 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS South African Journal of Bioethics and Law Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.7196/sajbl.2024.v17i1.1969
L. Abdulrauf, B. L. Llb, Adaji, B. L. Llb, PhD H Ojibara
{"title":"明确 POPIA 中跨境共享健康数据的法律要求:关于《研究行为守则》草案的建议","authors":"L. Abdulrauf, B. L. Llb, Adaji, B. L. Llb, PhD H Ojibara","doi":"10.7196/sajbl.2024.v17i1.1969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\n\nThe draft Code of Conduct for Research is an important initiative towards assisting the scientific community in complying with the provisions of the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA). However, its approach towards cross-border data sharing should be reconsidered to clarify the ambiguities inherent in the legal requirements for the cross-border sharing of health data in the POPIA. These ambiguities include the concept of ‘transfer of information’, the application of adequacy as a legal mechanism for transfer, the nature of consent for cross-border sharing and the scope of the recipient third party. We suggest that the draft Code of Conduct for Research can be improved by:\n\n\nExplaining or defining the concept of ‘transfer of information’ and when it applies to cross-border sharing in research\n\n\nClarifying the application of adequacy as a legal mechanism for transfer vis-à-vis the other alternatives\n\n\nExpanding on the interpretation and application of consent as a legal mechanism for cross-border transfers\n\n\nExpanding the category of persons who may be recipients of personal information in a third country\n\n\n\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":43498,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clarifying the legal requirement for cross-border sharing of health data in POPIA: Recommendations on the draft Code of Conduct for Research\",\"authors\":\"L. Abdulrauf, B. L. Llb, Adaji, B. L. Llb, PhD H Ojibara\",\"doi\":\"10.7196/sajbl.2024.v17i1.1969\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\n\\nThe draft Code of Conduct for Research is an important initiative towards assisting the scientific community in complying with the provisions of the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA). However, its approach towards cross-border data sharing should be reconsidered to clarify the ambiguities inherent in the legal requirements for the cross-border sharing of health data in the POPIA. These ambiguities include the concept of ‘transfer of information’, the application of adequacy as a legal mechanism for transfer, the nature of consent for cross-border sharing and the scope of the recipient third party. We suggest that the draft Code of Conduct for Research can be improved by:\\n\\n\\nExplaining or defining the concept of ‘transfer of information’ and when it applies to cross-border sharing in research\\n\\n\\nClarifying the application of adequacy as a legal mechanism for transfer vis-à-vis the other alternatives\\n\\n\\nExpanding on the interpretation and application of consent as a legal mechanism for cross-border transfers\\n\\n\\nExpanding the category of persons who may be recipients of personal information in a third country\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":43498,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2024.v17i1.1969\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2024.v17i1.1969","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究行为守则草案是协助科学界遵守 2013 年第 4 号《个人信息保护法》(POPIA)规定的一项重要举措。然而,应重新考虑其对跨境数据共享的处理方法,以澄清《个人信息保护法》中关于跨境共享健康数据的法律要求中固有的模糊之处。这些不明确之处包括 "信息转移 "的概念、作为转移法律机制的适足性的应用、跨境共享同意的性质以及接收方第三方的范围。我们建议《研究行为准则》草案可以通过以下方式加以改进:解释或定义 "信息转让 "的概 念,以及该概念何时适用于研究中的跨境共享;明确适用适当性作为转让的法律机制与其他 替代机制的区别;扩展同意作为跨境转让的法律机制的解释和适用范围;扩展可能成为第三国 个人信息接收者的人员类别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clarifying the legal requirement for cross-border sharing of health data in POPIA: Recommendations on the draft Code of Conduct for Research
The draft Code of Conduct for Research is an important initiative towards assisting the scientific community in complying with the provisions of the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA). However, its approach towards cross-border data sharing should be reconsidered to clarify the ambiguities inherent in the legal requirements for the cross-border sharing of health data in the POPIA. These ambiguities include the concept of ‘transfer of information’, the application of adequacy as a legal mechanism for transfer, the nature of consent for cross-border sharing and the scope of the recipient third party. We suggest that the draft Code of Conduct for Research can be improved by: Explaining or defining the concept of ‘transfer of information’ and when it applies to cross-border sharing in research Clarifying the application of adequacy as a legal mechanism for transfer vis-à-vis the other alternatives Expanding on the interpretation and application of consent as a legal mechanism for cross-border transfers Expanding the category of persons who may be recipients of personal information in a third country
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
18
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Stellenbosch University Senate ought to remain neutral on the Israel-Palestine war in Gaza - A response to Mahomed and Hendricks A response to 'The Stellenbosch University Senate ought to remain neutral on the Israel-Palestine war in Gaza - A response to Mahomed and Hendricks' International humanitarian law: Dunant would be devastated again Organ donation after circulatory death – legal in South Africa and in alignment with Chapter 8 of the National Health Act and Regulations relating to organ and tissue donation The noble cause of medicine – fact or fallacy?
×
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