Editing Privacy (section)

===By country===
====Australia====
{{main |Privacy in Australian law}}

The ''Privacy Act 1988'' is administered by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The initial introduction of privacy law in 1998 extended to the public sector, specifically to Federal government departments, under the Information Privacy Principles. State government agencies can also be subject to state based privacy legislation. This built upon the already existing privacy requirements that applied to telecommunications providers (under Part 13 of the ''Telecommunications Act 1997''), and confidentiality requirements that already applied to banking, legal and patient / doctor relationships.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/the-privacy-act|title=The Privacy Act|website=Home|date=10 March 2023 }}</ref>

In 2008 the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) conducted a review of Australian privacy law and produced a report titled "For Your Information".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/report-108 |title=For Your Information |publisher=Alrc.gov.au |date=2008-08-12 |access-date=2019-08-22}}</ref> Recommendations were taken up and implemented by the Australian Government via the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012.<ref>[https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012A00197 Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012].</ref>

{{Main|Privacy in Australian law#Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015}}

In 2015, the [[Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015]] was passed, to some [[Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015#Case against data retention|controversy over its human rights implications]] and the role of media.

==== Canada ====
{{Main|Canadian privacy law}}
Canada is a federal state whose provinces and territories abide by the [[common law]] save the province of Quebec whose legal tradition is the [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]]. Privacy in Canada was first addressed through the [[Privacy Act (Canada)|''Privacy Act'']],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Branch |first=Legislative Services |date=2023-09-01 |title=Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Privacy Act |url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ACTS/P-21/page-1.html |access-date=2024-03-21 |website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca}}</ref> a 1985 piece of legislation applicable to personal information held by government institutions. The provinces and territories would later follow suit with their own legislation. Generally, the purposes of said legislation are to provide individuals rights to access personal information; to have inaccurate personal information corrected; and to prevent unauthorized collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Power |first=Michael |title=Access to Information and Privacy |publisher=LexisNexis Canada Inc. |year=2020 |pages=HAP-51 |language=}}</ref> In terms of regulating personal information in the private sector, the federal ''[[Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act]]'' <ref>{{Cite web |last=Branch |first=Legislative Services |date=2019-06-21 |title=Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act |url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-8.6/page-1.html |access-date=2024-03-21 |website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca}}</ref> ("PIPEDA") is enforceable in all jurisdictions unless a substantially similar provision has been enacted on the provincial level.<ref name=":03">{{Cite book |last=Power |first=Michael |title=Access to Information and Privacy |publisher=LexisNexis Canada Inc. |year=2020 |pages=HAP-81}}</ref> However, inter-provincial or international information transfers still engage PIPEDA.<ref name=":03" /> PIPEDA has gone through two law overhaul efforts in 2021 and 2023 with the involvement of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Canadian academics.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cofone |first=Ignacio |title=Policy Proposals for PIPEDA Reform to Address Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Office of the Privacy Commissioner |year=2020 |url=https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/what-we-do/consultations/completed-consultations/consultation-ai/pol-ai_202011/ }}</ref> In the absence of a statutory private right of action absent an OPC investigation, the common law torts of intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts, as well as the Civil Code of Quebec may be brought for an infringement or violation of privacy.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Cofone |first=Ignacio |title=Class Actions in Privacy Law |publisher=Routledge |year=2021}}</ref><ref>Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), online: https://canlii.ca/t/fpnld.</ref> Privacy is also protected under ss. 7 and 8 of the ''[[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Branch |first=Legislative Services |date=2020-08-07 |title=Consolidated federal laws of Canada, THE CONSTITUTION ACTS, 1867 to 1982 |url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html |access-date=2024-03-22 |website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca}}</ref> which is typically applied in the criminal law context.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Penney |first1=Steven |title=Criminal Procedure in Canada |last2=Rondinelli |first2=Vincenzo |last3=James |first3=Stribopoulos |date=2013 |publisher=LexisNexis Canada Inc. |pages=143–77}}</ref> In Quebec, individuals' privacy is safeguarded by articles 3 and 35 to 41 of the [[Civil Code of Quebec]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=- Civil Code of Québec |url=https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/ccq-1991/20170616#:~:text=Every%20person%20has%20a%20right,64,%20a. |access-date=2024-03-22 |website=www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca}}</ref> as well as by s. 5 of the [[Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms|Charter of human rights and freedoms]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=- Charter of human rights and freedoms |url=https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/c-12 |access-date=2024-03-22 |website=www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca}}</ref>

====European Union====
{{Further|Information privacy law#Europe}}

In 2016, the European Union passed the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which was intended to reduce the misuse of personal data and enhance individual privacy, by requiring companies to receive consent before acquiring personal information from users.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1088/1742-6596/1168/3/032084 |title=E-Commerce Consumer Privacy Protection Based on Differential Privacy |date=2019 |last1=Zhong |first1=Guorong |journal=Journal of Physics: Conference Series |volume=1168 |issue=3 |page=032084 |bibcode=2019JPhCS1168c2084Z |s2cid=169731837 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Although there are comprehensive regulations for data protection in the European Union, one study finds that despite the laws, there is a lack of enforcement in that no institution feels responsible to control the parties involved and enforce their laws.<ref>Burghardt, Buchmann, Böhm, Kühling, Sivridis ''A Study on the Lack of Enforcement of Data Protection Acts'' Proceedings of the 3rd int. conference on e-democracy, 2009.</ref> The European Union also champions the [[Right to be Forgotten]] concept in support of its adoption by other countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/french-official-campaigns-to-make-right-to-be-forgotten-global/|title=French Official Campaigns to Make 'Right to be Forgotten' Global| author=Mark Scott|date=3 December 2014| publisher=nytimes | access-date=14 April 2018}}</ref>

====India====
{{further|Aadhaar#Lack of legislation and privacy concerns}}

Since the introduction of the [[Aadhaar]] project in 2009, which resulted in all 1.2 billion Indians being associated with a 12-digit biometric-secured number. Aadhaar has uplifted the poor in India{{how|date=July 2023}}{{promotion inline|date=July 2023}} by providing them with a form of  identity and preventing the fraud and waste of resources, as normally the government would not be able to allocate its resources to its intended assignees due to the ID issues.{{Citation needed|date=December 2021}} With the rise of Aadhaar, India has debated whether Aadhaar violates an individual's privacy and whether any organization should have access to an individual's digital profile, as the Aadhaar card became associated with other economic sectors, allowing for the tracking of individuals by both public and private bodies.<ref>{{Cite web|title=What Happens When a Billion Identities Are Digitized?|url=https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-happens-when-billion-identities-are-digitized|access-date=2021-11-22|website=Yale Insights|date=27 March 2020 |language=en}}</ref> Aadhaar databases have suffered from security attacks as well and the project was also met with mistrust regarding the safety of the social protection infrastructures.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Masiero|first=Silvia|date=2018-09-24|title=Explaining Trust in Large Biometric Infrastructures: A Critical Realist Case Study of India's Aadhaar Project |url=https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/35413 |journal=The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries|volume=84|issue=6|pages=e12053|doi=10.1002/isd2.12053|doi-access=free}}</ref>  In 2017, where the Aadhar was challenged, the Indian Supreme Court declared privacy as a human right, but postponed the decision regarding the constitutionality of Aadhaar for another bench.<ref>{{Cite news|last=McCarthy|first=Julie|date=2017-08-24|title=Indian Supreme Court Declares Privacy A Fundamental Right|language=en|work=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/24/545963181/indian-supreme-court-declares-privacy-a-fundamental-right|access-date=2021-11-22}}</ref> In September 2018, the Indian Supreme Court determined that the Aadhaar project did not violate the legal right to privacy.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Saberin|first=Zeenat|title=India's top court upholds validity of biometric ID card|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/9/26/indias-top-court-upholds-constitution-validity-of-aadhaar-card|access-date=2021-11-22|website=www.aljazeera.com|language=en}}</ref>

====United Kingdom====
{{main |Privacy in English law}}

In the United Kingdom, it is not possible to bring an action for invasion of privacy. An action may be brought under another [[tort]] (usually breach of confidence) and privacy must then be considered under EC law. In the UK, it is sometimes a defence that disclosure of private information was in the public interest.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4482073.stm Does Beckham judgment change rules?], from [[BBC News]] (retrieved 27 April 2005).</ref> There is, however, the [[Information Commissioner's Office]] (ICO), an independent public body set up to promote access to official information and protect personal information. They do this by promoting good practice, ruling on eligible complaints, giving information to individuals and organisations, and taking action when the law is broken. The relevant UK laws include: [[Data Protection Act 1998]]; [[Freedom of Information Act 2000]]; [[Environmental Information Regulations 2004]]; [[Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003|Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003]]. The ICO has also provided a "Personal Information Toolkit" online which explains in more detail the various ways of protecting privacy online.<ref>[http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/toolkit.pdf "Personal Information Toolkit"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090103165639/http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/toolkit.pdf |date=2009-01-03 }}  Information Commissioner's Office, UK</ref>

====United States====
{{main |Privacy laws of the United States}}

In the United States, more systematic treatises of privacy did not appear until the 1890s, with the development of [[Privacy laws of the United States|privacy law in America]].<ref name=":6">{{Cite book |last=DeCew |first=Judith |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/privacy/ |title=Privacy |date=2015-01-01 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Spring 2015}}</ref> Although the [[United States Constitution|US Constitution]] does not explicitly include the [[right to privacy]], individual as well as [[#Privacy and location-based services|locational privacy]] may be implicitly granted by the Constitution under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|4th Amendment]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Fourth Amendment|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment|access-date=2021-03-20|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] has found that other guarantees have [[Penumbra (law)|''penumbras'']] that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' and ''[[Roe v. Wade]].'' ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' later overruled ''Roe v. Wade'', with Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] characterizing ''Griswold''<nowiki/>'s penumbral argument as having a "facial absurdity",<ref>{{Cite web |title=DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392 |access-date=2022-06-25 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> casting doubt on the validity of a constitutional right to privacy in the United States and of previous decisions relying on it.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Frias |first=Lauren |title=What is Griswold v. Connecticut? How access to contraception and other privacy rights could be at risk after SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/contraception-access-privacy-rights-at-risk-overturned-roe-v-wade-2022-6 |access-date=2022-06-25 |website=Business Insider |language=en-US}}</ref> In the United States, the right of [[freedom of speech]] granted in the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the US by the [[Privacy Act of 1974]], and various state laws. The Privacy Act of 1974 only applies to federal agencies in the executive branch of the federal government.<ref>{{cite web|url = https://foia.state.gov/Learn/PrivacyAct.aspx|title = The Privacy Act|date = 2015-05-22|access-date = 2015-11-19|website = Freedom of Information Act|publisher = US Department of State|archive-date = 2015-08-10|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150810064120/https://foia.state.gov/Learn/PrivacyAct.aspx|url-status = dead}}</ref> Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the [[Children's Online Privacy Protection Act]] (COPPA),<ref>Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.</ref> the [[Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act]] (GLB), and the [[Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]] (HIPAA).
<ref>[[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]</ref>

Unlike the EU and most EU-member states, the US does not recognize the right to privacy of non-US citizens. The UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joseph A. Cannataci, criticized this distinction.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://undocs.org/A/HRC/46/37/Add.4| title = Visit to the United States of America}}</ref>