Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:09 pm
Time: 12:09 pm
Results for rights
2 results foundAuthor: European Commission Title: Profiling: Protecting citizens' rights, fighting illicit profiling Summary: One of the biggest challenges posed by the global technological evolution to the right of data protection is the processing of such data in the context of profiling. UNICRI is leading a consortium of partners in the implementation of a new project which seeks to outline the main risks to human rights involved in profiling practices. The PROFILING project has been funded by the European Commission, DG Justice, under the Fundamental Rights and Citizens programme. It is focused on identifying and tackling the challenges posed by technology to the fundamental right to data protection. Main objectives -Identifying the risks related to the extensive use of profiling -Identifying the level of awareness of the responsible authorities of the Member States on the risks deriving from the use of profiling -Identifying the level of awareness of a selected sample/group of interviewers in testing partner countries -Identifying the countermeasures adopted in all EU Member States. Main activities: 1.A background analysis on profiling and its impact on fundamental rights 2.A risk assessment based on the results of the background analysis 3.A series of questionnaires elaborated and tested with the national Data Protection Authorities of the 28 EU Member States and Switzerland, to assess the present European legal framework 4.Fieldwork in three selected countries - Romania, Germany and Italy - exploring automated profiling in different domains of applications: political activism (Germany), border control (Italy) and e-commerce (Romania). Details: Brussels: European Commission, 2014. 205p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://profiling-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Profiling_final_report_20141.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://profiling-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Profiling_final_report_20141.pdf Shelf Number: 137959 Keywords: Data ProtectionPrivacyProfilingRights |
Author: Schlanger, Margo Title: The Constitutional Law of Incarceration, Reconfigured Summary: As American incarcerated populations grew starting in the 1970s, so too did court oversight of prisons. In the late 1980s, however, as incarceration continued to boom, federal court oversight shrank. This Article addresses the most central doctrinal limit on oversight of jails and prisons, the Supreme Court's restrictive reading of the constitutional provisions governing treatment of prisoners - the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Due Process Clause, which regulate, respectively, post-conviction imprisonment and pretrial detention. The Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment, in particular, radically undermined prison officials' accountability for tragedies behind bars - allowing, even encouraging, them to avoid constitutional accountability. And lower courts compounded the error by importing that reading into Due Process doctrine as well. In 2015, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a jail use of force case, the Court relied on 1970s precedent, not subsequent case-law that had placed undue emphasis on the subjective culpability of prison and jail officials as the crucial source of constitutional concern. The Kingsley Court returned to a more appropriate objective analysis. In finding for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court unsettled the law far past Kingsley's direct factual setting of pretrial detention, expressly inviting post-conviction challenges to restrictive - and incoherent - Eighth Amendment caselaw. The Court rejected not only the defendants' position, but the logic that underlies 25 years of pro-government outcomes in prisoners' rights cases. But commentary and developing caselaw since Kingsley has not fully recognized its implications. I argue that both doctrinal logic and justice dictate that constitutional litigation should center on the experience of incarcerated prisoners, rather than the culpability of their keepers. The takeaway of my analysis is that the Constitution is best read to impose governmental liability for harm caused to prisoners - whether pretrial or post-conviction - by unreasonably dangerous conditions of confinement and unjustified uses of force. In this era of mass incarceration, our jails and prisons should not be shielded from accountability by legal standards that lack both doctrinal and normative warrant. Details: Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School, 2017. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 535: Accessed February 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920283 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: University of Michigan Law School Shelf Number: 149037 Keywords: IncarcerationPrisonersPrisonsRights |