• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.131-142
• /
• 2001

IT 산업은 인터넷을 발달시킴으로써 새로운 경제 시대 (New Economic Era)를 열게 하였을 뿐만 아니라 민주주의제도의 발전가능성을 한층 더 앞당기는 계기를 마련하고 있다. 그러나 개인들은 그들의 개인정보가 국가기관이나 민간기관에 자신도 모르는 사이 누출되어 국가기관의 감시체제를 구축하거나 불공정한 상업적 목적으로 쓰일 수 있다는 우려 때문에 온라인상의 구매활동이나 정치활동을 주저하고 있다. 특히 유럽민족은 과거의 역사적인 사건들로 인해 개인정보 유출문제에 매우 민감하게 반응한다. 이러한 이유로 EU는 EU국가들 내에서의 인터넷관련 개인정보처리문제와 EU와 제3국간의 개인정보 이전 문제를 규정하는 지침을 1995년 재정하고 1998년부터 시행하고 있다. 동 지침은 또한 미국과의 정보이전협상인 safe harbor를 탄생시켰다. 본 고에서는 왜 개인정보 보호법이 필요한지 그 이유와 개인정보보호에 대한 국제적인 논의 그리고 EU의 개인정보지침 내용을 연구한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.117-157
• /
• 2021

This research reviewed the HIPAA/HITECH, 21st Century Cures Act, Common Law, and private Guidances from the perspectives in protecting and utilitizing the medical data, while implications were followed. First, the standards for protection and utilization are relatively clearly regulated through single law on personal medical information in the United States. The HIPAA has been introduced in 1996 as fundamental act on protection of medical data. Medical data was divided into personally identifiable information, non-identifying information, and limited dataset under HIPAA. Regulations on de-identification measures for medical information, objects for deletion of limited data sets, and agreement on prohibition of data re-identification were stipulated. Moreover, in the 21st Century Cures Act regulated mutual compatibility for data sharing, prohibition of data blocking, and strengthening of accessibility of data subjects. Common Law introduced comprehensive consent system and clearly stipulates procedures. Second, the regulatory system is relatively simplified and clearly stipulated in the United States. To be specific, the expert consensus and the safe harbor system were introduced as an anonymity measure for identifiable medical information, which clearly defines the process while increasing trust. Third, the protection of the rights of the data subject is specified, the duty of explanation is specified in detail, while the information right of the consumer (opt-out procedure) for identification information is specified. For instance, the HHS rule and FDA regulations recognize the comprehensive consent system for human research, but the consent procedure, method, and requirements are stipulated through the common rule. Fourth, in the case of the United States, a trust-based system is being used throughout the health and medical data legislation. To be specific, Limited Data Sets are allowed to use in condition to the researcher's agreement to prohibit re-identification, and de-identification or consent process is simplified under the system.

• Journal of the Korean Professional Engineers Association
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.62-64
• /
• 2001

As of July 1. 2001, the Law of Information 8t Telecommunication Protection has been compulsory to audit protection status on national information and Telecommunications Infra facilities such as communication, electricity, waterworks, airport, railway, primary facilities of government and the first financial circles. In U.S. institutions, organizations and corporations in each field are trying to prepare for Safe Har-bor agreed on Internet privacy regulation between U.S. and Europe to be effective in 2003. The Safe Harbor was motl-vated by strict European standard. Other countries make privacy and information protection law according to their own interest. Therefore Korean technical experts have to develop the law responding to national interest and public welfare. Besides scientific Held, experts in the field of politic, economy and academy also have to work hard to develop the law.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.1269-1277
• /
• 2016

European Union and United States have introduced new Privacy Shield agreement after decision of Court of Justice of the European Union which invalidated Safe Harbor agreement. Privacy Shield agreement contains several clauses to raise the level of personal data protection such as enhanced commitments, stronger enforcement, clear safeguards and transparency obligations, and effective protection of EU citizens' rights with several redress possibilities. This agreement has received positive response as an enhanced measure for personal data protection. This paper examines EU and US discussion history and current situation regarding Privacy Shield and suggests national policy direction such as measures for personal data transborder flow system improvement and international cooperation.