The background, the setting, the environment, the environment, the staging mean the place, the time and the circumstances in which something happens. Context often refers to circumstances or events that precede a phenomenon or development. This shocking decision was made in the context of the riots, which suggest looking at real situations in literary or dramatic terms. A militant reformer born in an unlikely social environment refers to all external factors that have a formative influence on physical, mental or moral development. The type of environment that produces a juvenile delinquency environment applies in particular to the physical and social environment of a person or group of people. An intellectual environment conducive to artistic experimentation Mise en Scène suggests the use of characteristics to achieve a certain atmosphere or theatrical effect. A gothic thriller with carefully crafted staging The discussions took place against a backdrop of increasing violence. We are looking for writers with a legal background. Given the limited capacity of the law to ensure parity among the parties involved, the role of counsel is equally limited.

A lawyer must be a zealous defender of his client`s interests. If an organization asks its lawyer, “Is it legal?”, the answer “yes”, “no” or “it depends” is irrelevant. The problem lies in the question, because it exempts any analysis beyond the limits of the law. You need general information about the local economy. Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms of Background Many lawyers enter the privacy profession, not because of their personal interest in the subject, but through career paths that have led them to deal with compliance with laws categorized as “privacy” or “data protection.” That`s not a bad thing. Organizations must comply with the complex and often conflicting laws under which they operate, and they need professionals to help them do so. And this should certainly not diminish those who, seeing this market opportunity, have pursued the profession vigorously. Unfortunately, for many, it`s just “the paycheck that binds them to the profession.” In my conversations with many legal experts, they seem to focus narrowly on the role and compliance of the law. They are captivated by it, which limits their ability to see beyond and understand the need to achieve a balance of interests. My introduction of privacy questions and concerns outside the bounds of a regulatory requirement is met with blank stares or mocking comments. This is not to say it reflects all lawyers in the profession, and perhaps I stereotype unnecessarily.

However, I am not the first to express this concern. Namely, the law can play a role. As a snapshot of social norms and taking into account cultural, geographic, and in some cases, contextual principles, laws can help define and specify a boundary. The law is able to reduce subjective differences in beliefs between individuals and those with whom they interact. For example, HIPAA in the United States has enacted the long-standing standard for healthcare privacy. The law clarifies for those in the United States that fall within its scope and what are the appropriate dimensions of the relationship between the patient and those who provide medical care to that patient. It provides a common framework and clarity for participants to eliminate ambiguities or unmet expectations. And it`s the privacy experts who should be there to facilitate that choice. If you wish to comment on this article, you must register. For several years, Illana Westerman has been promoting the concept of privacy as trust.

Essentially, trust is the belief of individuals that the organization they frequent does not abuse the power imbalance to their advantage. The leaders of the organization must make a conscious decision to pursue this relational justice. This article will certainly be controversial and will arouse the enthusiasm of some readers. This is not to denigrate lawyers or even privacy experts, but to identify a gap between them. Moreover, clarity of law does not create justice. Organizations (whether commercial, governmental, or otherwise) have an inherent power advantage over individuals. Information asymmetry, bargaining power and rational ignorance serve to tip the scales away from the individual. As Bruce Schneier notes in his book Data and Goliath, the use of “data uses group interests against self-interest, the central tension with which humanity has struggled since our creation.” A privacy expert`s investigation should not be limited to legal restrictions. They have the task of being a zealous advocate of the right balance between individuals and organizations. You must be the person who has access to all of the information, who can convey the positions of all parties involved, and who spends the time to understand the parties` risks, benefits, rewards and behaviors.

You can perform the unbiased analysis. You can be the one “who will bring balance to power.” (Free Star Wars referral included for free.) However, this role is limited. While the law provides clarity in some situations, it may not be precise or detailed enough to address each case, permutation or nuance of context. It cannot evolve fast enough to keep pace with changing social mores and technological innovations. And if history is a guide, it cannot remain intact or unbiased enough to properly balance competing interests. The law may provide for a lower limit by which the exploitation of the imbalance is not permitted, but it does not allow a balance of interests to be achieved. Even the usual privacy principles – such as notice, choice, consent, transparency and even proportionality – are not enough to balance interests. Not only do people know this, but in many circumstances they cannot know the full extent of the risks of their disclosures or actions. They simply do not have the time to fully consider all the possible implications of their decisions and make rational decisions. Photo credit: 3D Scales of Justice via photopin (license) Privacy is a much broader and comprehensive issue; It is the boundary between an individual and others in society. The law does not and cannot address all cases of social interaction to define the appropriate terms for each boundary.

Determining the nature and scope of a boundary involves a complex interplay of factors: social and cultural norms, relationships, subjective beliefs, technology, and context. It`s a burgeoning achievement. Omer Tene recently discussed this in Privacy Perspectives on big data, when he wrote, “The law is not enough to weigh the benefits of big data against the risks to privacy and civil liberties.” Personal choices also ignore social change. These decisions can support what may ultimately come back to the individual in unforeseen ways. In addition, individuals do not have the bargaining power to effect change. Consent is often illusory. If all market participants occupy the same position, the consumer`s only choice is to leave the market. Heredity is not a very tasty option for most.

Even when individuals are fully informed about risks, cognitive biases prevent rational decision-making when rewards are immediate, but consequences are delayed. First of all, it must be recognized that data protection law is not a privacy law.