Search

Purpose: As mobile apps request permissions from users, protecting mobile users' personal information from being unnecessarily collected and misused becomes critical. Privacy regulations, such as General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union (EU), aim to protect users' online information privacy. However, one's understanding of whether these regulations effectively make mobile users less concerned about their privacy is still limited. This work aims to study mobile users' privacy concerns towards mobile apps by examining the effects of general and specific privacy assurance statements in China and the EU. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on ecological rationality and heuristics theory, an online experiment and a follow-up validation experiment were conducted in the EU and China to examine the effects of privacy assurance statements on mobile users' privacy concerns. Findings: When privacy regulation is presented, the privacy concerns of Chinese mobile users are significantly lowered compared with EU mobile users. This indicates that individuals in the two regions react differently to privacy assurances. However, when a general regulation statement is used, no effect is observed. EU and Chinese respondents remain unaffected by general assurance statements. Originality/value: This study incorporates notions from fast and frugal heuristics end ecological rationality – where seemingly irrational decisions may make sense in different societal contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aims at analyzing the "expansive effect" of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in three non-EU case countries, i.e. Russia, Ukraine and China, to understand how the GDPR provisions affect, or are affected by, the interaction with three non-EU legal systems. The recently adopted GDPR, being a set of comprehensive data processing rules and penalties for violating data protection regulations, has set a very high standard for the other states in developing their own data protection regulations, but at the same time, the GDPR has brought about a wide range of compliance challenges. Due to the extraterritorial character of the General Data Protection Regulation, these challenges regard not only the EU member states but also any organisations around the world engaged in professional or commercial relations with the European Union. Therefore, there is a gap in understanding the interplay between the newly-built European data protection system and the legal systems outside the EU, which this research seeks to cover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the evolution of China's Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and situates it within the context of global data protection development. It draws inspiration from the theory of 'Brussels Effect' and provides a critical account of its application in non-Western jurisdictions, taking China as a prime example. Our objective is not to provide a comparative commentary on China's legal development but to illuminate the intricate dynamics between the Chinese law and the EU's GDPR. We argue that the trajectory of China's Personal Information Protection Law calls into question the applicability of the Brussels Effect: while the GDPR's imprint on the PIPL is evident, a deeper analysis unveils China's nuanced, non-linear adoption that diverges from many assumptions of the Brussels Effect and similar theories. The evolution of the GDPR-inspired PIPL is not as a straightforward outcome of the Brussels Effect but as a nuanced, intricate interplay of external influence and domestic dynamics. We introduce a complementary theory of 'gravity assist', which portrays China's strategic instrumentalisation of the GDPR as a template to shape its unique data protection landscape. Our theoretical framework highlights how China navigates through a patchwork of internal considerations, international standards, and strategic choices, ultimately sculpting a data protection regime that has a similar appearance to the GDPR but aligns with its distinct political, cultural and legal landscape. With a detailed historical and policy analysis of the PIPL, coupled with reasonable speculations on its future avenues, our analysis presents a pragmatic, culturally congruent approach to legal development in China. It signals a trajectory that, while potentially converging at a principled level, is likely to diverge significantly in practice, driven by China's broader socio-political and economic agendas rather than the foundational premises of EU data protection law and its global aspirations. It thus indicates the inherent limitations of applying Brussels Effect and other theoretical frameworks to non-Western jurisdictions, highlighting the imperative for integrating complementary theories to more accurately navigate complex legal landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this time we live in, the rapid development of the internet as a business platform has data, particularly personal data, as part of economic production. After the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was passed in the European Parliament in 2016, there have been flourishing popping-up of data protection legislation around the globe. These include but are not limited to the Brazil General Law for Data Protection (LGPD), the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) in Thailand, and the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB) in India. In addition to the aforementioned legislative governance tool on personal data, the Draft of Law on Protection of Personal Information of the People's Republic of China (hereafter: the LPPI Draft) is promulgated in October 2020, which came after relative active unfolding of privacy as well as information security-related regulations in China in recent years and had significant implications on the digital economy, including the sector of online advertising. In the past, commentators both inside and outside China cast doubts on whether the concept of privacy, if ever exists, has any bases in the PRC jurisprudence. Nevertheless, together with the non-stop booming of digital and data economy, the Chinese in the mainland have quite swiftly structured a framework that could assist in the furtherance of the utilization of personal data, at least within the territory of China. With a brief introduction on the PRC LPPI Draft and a comparison with the GDPR, this article aims to provide some observations on if the European Union has extended its global reach through normative power. Moreover, it would hopefully serve as a basis for future examination on whether China might reverse the situation and provide the globe a more efficient governance model for digital economic activities and the regulatory model of data protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growth of e-commerce and other platforms has significantly increased the amount of personal data that is shared and submitted online; however, the adequate and secure collection and processing of these data is of great concern. With the EU's implementation of a new data protection regulation in 2018, the development of personal data protection globally has reached an important turning point and has sparked the interest of scholars and businesses. Text coding was employed to compare the current personal data protection regulation landscape in the EU and in China to discover the differences between the General Data Protection Regulation and the personal data protection regulations of the fastest-growing economy in e-commerce. The results show that while there are several similarities in regard to general requirements, such as principles of data processing and basic rights for data subjects, China's personal data protection regulations tend to lack specific operational requirements and strong legal enforcement. Based on the research results, implications and recommendations for the government and companies are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology giants, bolstered by weak regulatory oversight, have expanded capacities for personal data collection and analysis. This has resulted in a new set of power dynamics and logics of accumulation collectively referred to as surveillance capitalism. In response, the EU and China have adopted major policies on big data with implications for future social and economic development. Europe's General Data Protection Regulation is a reactive response, asserting individual privacy and placing limits on corporate use of personal data. In contrast, China's social credit system is a proactive response, combining surveillance architectures and AI technologies for purposes of statecraft. Using a comparative approach, this paper analyses the social and economic implications of two societies attempting to move beyond surveillance capitalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the main goals of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is to protect the personal data of individuals. Each organization (company, association, school, institution, university, etc.) has an obligation to protect all of the individual data that it obtains. Those data can belong to employees, members, students, clients, etc. The research in this paper is related to the higher education students in Croatia. This study is being conducted in three parts. The first part was conducted in April of 2017 (N=159) and the second in April/May of 2018 (N=141), in a period before the GDPR became valid (May 25th, 2018). In this paper, we are analysing the results of the second part of the study. Additionally, we are discussing risks that might appear if students do not know the GDPR. Risk matrix results are used to represent a basis which higher education administrations can utilize to make corrective decisions. The main conclusion of the research is that there are still issues with understanding the basic concepts of personal data and the GDPR, which may cause some problems during studying process. The main recommendation for HEIs or students organizations (such as student councils) is to organize lectures and workshops related to the GDPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]