Articles for tag: COVID-19Data SharingDatenschutzDSGVO

Data crossing borders

The cross-border sharing of personal data to combat coronavirus raises questions under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the GDPR) - two of which will be dealt with here. The first question is whether EU data protection law is flexible enough to allow the international sharing of personal data to fight the pandemic. Secondly, data protection law has traditionally been shaped by pivotal events in history (think of the effect that the reaction to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 had on data protection law), and one can ask what implications the crisis will have on the future development of data transfer regulation.

Versammlungs­freiheit – auch in Krisenzeiten!

Die Bundesländer haben in den letzten Wochen durch ihre Verordnungen zur Eindämmung der Corona-Pandemie auch weitreichende Beschränkungen der Versammlungsfreiheit (Art. 8 GG) erlassen. Die Versammlungsfreiheit ist als kollektive Meinungsfreiheit für die Demokratie essentiell, wie das Bundesverfassungsgericht seit Jahrzehnten immer wieder unterstreicht. Gerade in Krisenzeiten, in denen Regierungen, Verwaltungen und Sicherheitsbehörden weitreichende Möglichkeiten zu Grundrechtseingriffen haben, ist die Versammlungsfreiheit ein wichtiges demokratisches Korrektiv. Die derzeitigen Krisenregelungen und ihre praktische Anwendung durch Versammlungsbehörden und Polizei werden der Bedeutung der Versammlungsfreiheit für die Demokratie nicht gerecht.

The Constitutionalized State of Emergency

The late Giovanni Sartori once said that we lacked a general theory of dictatorship. It is very likely that we are also short of a theory of emergency. As the current pandemic has come to show us, not only we still have difficulties to include emergency into our conception of constitutional law; we seem to differ on what emergency means and necessitates and on what should be its place in the functioning of the democratic State.

How to protect the Vulnerable?

In the Corona crisis, balancing between containment measures and the protection of fundamental rights becomes even more pressing with respect to vulnerable groups, especially in view of proposals aiming at restricting curfews to high-risk populations. Over-emphasizing their need for protection bears the risk of disregarding their rights and autonomy and one-sidedly imposing paternalistic measures in order to urge a solution and alleviate economic consequences.

Emergency Powers in Nepal: An Ordinary Response?

Compared to many other countries, the known impact of COVID-19 on public health in Nepal has thus far been small. At the time of writing (4 April), only nine COVID-19 infections have been identified. However, as in many low-income developing countries, Nepal is particularly vulnerable to the spread of the virus. The country’s healthcare system is weak and, even at the best of times, hospitals suffer from chronic shortages of oxygen cylinders and ventilators—essential tools to fight the disease. Test kits are limited and the capacity to test samples in large quantities quickly is severely lacking. Moreover, while the existence of the virus within the community is known, the extent of its spread remains hidden The mass migration of workers back to their villages in pre-emption of the looming nation-wide lockdown potentially carried the virus throughout the entire country.

Corona Constitutional #8: Kein Mensch auf der Straße

Auf die Straße gehen dürfen ist nicht nur ein Ausdruck der allgemeinen Handlungsfreiheit, sondern auch ein politisches Grundrecht – für seine Meinung gemeinsam mit anderen zu demonstrieren, „friedlich und ohne Waffen“, wie es in Artikel 8 Grundgesetz heißt. Mit diesem Grundrecht wird aus Anlass der Coronakrise im Augenblick in vielen Bundesländern auf eine Weise umgesprungen, die – vorsichtig gesagt – zu Fragen Anlass gibt. Über diese Fragen redet Max Steinbeis mit dem langjährigen Associate Editor des Verfassungsblogs MATHIAS HONG.

Don’t Call a Spade a Shovel

Such concerns are, not only but to a large extent, fueled by the apparent indeterminacy of the terms employed to regulate fake news. This is true for Hungary, but also for France, Russia and several Asian countries, which have already passed fake news legislation. Uncertainties concerning the definition may have discouraged other states from passing similar laws, out of legitimate worries over freedom of expression. In fact, however, many scholars and institutions actually agree on the characteristics of the phenomenon.

Abstract panic: On fake news, fear and freedom in Southeast Asia

In Southeast Asia, which is the world’s most dynamic laboratory of fake news legislation, the corona crisis has put previously created laws to practice and sparked additional legislative activity. The professed goal is to prevent public panic. Recent enforcement actions, however, demonstrate the complete irrelevance of any panic indicators. A falsehood’s panic potential is simply assumed. In short, an abstract panic threat is fought with very concrete measures: Arrests and criminal prosecutions. Cases from across Southeast Asia prove the trend, whereas two decisions in Singapore deserve particular attention.

Not a Safe Place?

In an unprecedented move, the Italian government has declared Italy’s ports “unsafe” due to the COVID-19-pandemic. It did so by issuing an executive decree late Tuesday last week, seemingly in response to the rescue of 150 shipwrecked by the Sea-Eye’s Alan Kurdi. This is not the first time that the Italian government has used decrees to close its borders for sea-rescue ships. However, given the extraordinary circumstances of this case in the midst of the on-going Corona-crisis and the novel argument made by the Italian government, the decision warrants closer examination.