The ecosystem concept: a holistic approach to privacy protection

References

• Agnellutti, C., ed. 2014. Big Data: An Exploration of Opportunities, Values and Privacy Issues. New York: Nova Science.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. 2019. Nicomachean Ethics. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.
   Google Scholar
• Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, “Opinion 01/2014 on the Application of Necessity and Proportionality Concepts and Data Protection Within The Law Enforcement Sector”. 2014. 536/14/EN WP 211, Accessed 10 January 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp211_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ayres, P. 2012. Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, D. A. 1997. “The Concept of Security.” Review of International Studies 23 (1): 5–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barak, A. 2012. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, C. J. 1991. “Computer, Personal Data, and Theories of Technology: Comparative Approaches to Privacy Protection in the 1990s.” Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1): 51–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackman, F. F., and A. G. Tansley. 1905. “Ecology in its Physiological and Phyto-Topographical Aspects – A Review.” New Phytologist 4 (9): 232–253.
   Google Scholar
• Broeders, D., E. Schrijvers, B. van der Sloot, R. van Brakel, J. de Hoog, and E. Hirsch Ballin. 2017. “Big Data and Security Policies: Towards a Framework for Regulating the Phases of Analytics and Use of Big Data.” Computer Law and Security Review 33: 309–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, I. 2009. “Terrorism and the Proportionality of Internet Surveillance.” European Journal of Criminology 6 (2): 119–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. E. 2019. Intellectual Property, Climate Change and Technology: Managing National Legal Intersections, Relationships and Conflicts. Cheltenham: Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Chandler, J. 2009. “Privacy Versus National Security: Clarifying the Trade-Off.” In Lessons From The Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society, edited by Ian Kerr, Valerie Steeves, and Carole Lucock, 121–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Coughlin, T. “175 Zettabytes By 2025” (Forbes, 27 November 2018). Accessed 1 May 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomcoughlin/2018/11/27/175-zettabytes-by-2025/.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 2008. “Protecting the Right to Privacy in the Fight Against Terrorism.” (4 December 2008) CommDH/IssuePaper 3.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 2019. “ Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Home and Correspondence.” (31 August 2019) Accessed 9 January 2020. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Couzigou, I. 2019. “Towards a State-Private Actor Partnership in Securing Cyberspace.” University of Aberdeen, Research Centre for Constitution and Public International Law Working Paper Series 002/19.
   Google Scholar
• DeCew, J. W. 2018. In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics and the Rise of Technology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engle, E. 2012. “The History of the General Principle of Proportionality: An Overview.” The Dartmouth Law Journal 10 (1): 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2019. Facial Recognition Technology: Fundamental Rights Considerations in the Context of Law Enforcement. Accessed 1 May 2020. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-facial-recognition-technology-focus-paper-1_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Feinberg, M. 2015. “International Counterterrorism – National Security and Human Rights: Conflict of Norms or Checks and Balances.” The International Journal of Human Rights 19 (4): 388–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fura, E., and M. Klamberg. 2012. “The Chilling Effect of Counter-Terrorism Measures: A Comparative Analysis of Electronic Surveillance Laws in Europe and the USA.” In Freedom of Expression – Essays in Honour of Nicolas Bratza – President of the European Council of Human Rights, edited by Josep Casadevall, Egbert Myjer, and Michael O'Boyle, 463–481. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason, H. A. 1917. “The Structure and Development of the Plant Association.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 44 (10): 463–481.
   Google Scholar
• Golley, F. B. 1993. A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology: More Than The Sum Of The Parts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1992. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harbo, T.-I. 2010. “The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law.” European Law Journal 16 (2): 158–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himma, K. E. 2007. “Privacy Versus Security: Why Privacy Is Not An Absolute Value or Right.” San Diego Law Review 44 (4): 857–920.
   Google Scholar
• Hiranandani, V. 2011. “Privacy and Security in the Digital Age: Contemporary Challenges and Future Directions.” The International Journal of Human Rights 15 (7): 1091–1106.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbes, T. 2018. Leviathan. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, P. 2004. “Human Rights and Terrorism.” Human Rights Quarterly 26 (4): 932–955.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, C.Y. 24 October 2019. “Racial Bias in a Medical Algorithm Favours White Patients Over Sicker Black Patients.” Washington Post, Accessed 1 May 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/10/24/racial-bias-medical-algorithm-favors-white-patients-over-sicker-black-patients/.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, D. 2011. A Brief History of Justice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, C. 2018. “Privacy and Identity Issues in Financial Transactions: The Proportionality of the European Anti-Money Laundering Legislation.” PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Klitou, D. 2014. Privacy-Invading Technologies and Privacy by Design: Safeguarding Privacy, Liberty and Security in the 21st Century. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, W. 19 November 2019. “The Apple Card Didn’t ‘See’ Gender – And That’s The Problem.” (Wired). Accessed 1 May 2020. https://www.wired.com/story/the-apple-card-didnt-see-genderand-thats-the-problem/.
   Google Scholar
• Kolodziej, E. A. 2005. Security and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus, L. 2015. “The Right to Security.” In Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, edited by Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo, 423–441. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, H. 1932. The Universe of Science. London: C.A. Watts.
   Google Scholar
• Locke, J. 1948. “An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government.” In The Second Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, edited by John W. Gough. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Mars, M. M., and J. L. Bronstein. 2018. “The Promise of the Organizational Ecosystem Metaphor: An Argument for Biological Rigor.” Journal of Management Inquiry 27 (4): 382–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh, R. P. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh, R. P. 1998. “The Myth of Community as Organism.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41 (3): 426–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milaj, J. 2016. “Privacy, Surveillance and The Proportionality Principle: The Need For A Method of Assessing Privacy Implications of Technologies Used For Surveillance.” International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 30 (3): 115–130.
   Google Scholar
• Mitsilegas, V. 2015. “The Transformation of Privacy in an Era of Pre-Emptive Surveillance.” Tilburg Law Review 20 (1): 35–57.
   Google Scholar
• Moeckli, D. 2008. Human Rights and Non-Discrimination in the ‘War on Terror’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, T. B., and T. Suomela. 2017. “Information in the Ecosystem: Against the “Information Ecosystem”.” First Monday 22 (9). doi:10.5210/fm.v22i9.6847.
   Google Scholar
• Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
   Google Scholar
• Pickett, S. T. A., and M. L. Cadenasso. 2002. “The Ecosystem as a Multidimensional Concept: Meaning, Model and Metaphor.” Ecosystems 5: 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickett, S. T., and J. M. Grove. 2009. “Urban Ecosystems: What Would Tansley Do?” Urban Ecosystems 12: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Platjouw, F. M. 2016. Environmental Law and the Ecosystem Approach: Maintaining Ecological Integrity Through Consistency in Law. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, J. A., W. H. Peters, N. N. Craig, and B. C. Coull. 2006. “Systems and Ecosystems.” In Sustainability Science and Engineering: Defining Principles, edited by Martin A. Abraham, 113–126. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Scassa, T. 2017. “Law Enforcement in the Age of Big Data and Surveillance Intermediaries: Transparency Challenges.” SCRIPTed 14 (2): 239–284.
   Google Scholar
• Schneier, B. 2015. Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World. New York: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Serwin, A. B. 2009. “Privacy 3.0 – The Principle of Proportionality.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 42 (4): 869–930.
   Google Scholar
• Shue, H. 1996. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and U.S Foreign Policy. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solon, O. & Levin, S. 16 December 2016. ”How Google’s Search Algorithm Spreads False Information with a Rightwing Bias.” The Guardian. Accessed 1 May 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/google-autocomplete-rightwing-bias-algorithm-political-propaganda.
   Google Scholar
• Tansley, A. G. 1935. “The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms.” Ecology 16 (3): 284–307.
   Google Scholar
• Tsakyrakis, S. 2009. “Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?” International Journal of Constitutional Law 7 (3): 468–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Human Rights Council. 2009. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin.” (28 December 2009) UN Doc. A/HRC/13/37.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Human Rights Council. 2016. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, Joseph A. Cannataci.” (24 November 2016) UN Doc. A/HRC/31/64.
   Google Scholar
• Valkenburg, G. 2015. “Privacy Versus Security: Problems and Possibilities for the Trade-Off Model.” In Reforming European Data Protection Law, edited by Serge Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes, and Paul de Hert, 253–269. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Valk, A. G. 2014. “From Formation to Ecosystem: Tansley’s Response to Clements’ Climax.” Journal of the History of Biology 47: 293–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gerven, W. 1999. “The Effect of Proportionality on the Actions of Member States of the European Community: National Viewpoints From Continental Europe.” In The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, edited by Evelyn Ellis, 37–64. London: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wæver, O. 2011. “Securitization.” In Security Studies: A Reader, edited by Christopher W. Hughes and Lai Yew Meng, 93–98. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Westin, A. 1967. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Ig Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, A. J. 1994. “Arthur Roy Clapham, 24 May 1904–18 December 1990.” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 39: 71–90.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, A. J. 1997. “The Ecosystem: An Evolving Concept Viewed Historically.” Functional Ecology 11 (2): 268–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfers, A. 1952. “National Security” as an Ambiguous Symbol.” Political Science Quarterly 67 (4): 481–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolley, O. 2014. Ecological Governance: Reappraising Law’s Role in Protecting Ecosystem Functionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Woolley, O. 2020. “What Would Ecological Climate Change Law Look Like? Developing A Method for Analysing the International Climate Change Regime From An Ecological Perspective.” Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 29 (1): 76–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legislation
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948) Res. 217 A(III).
   Google Scholar
• United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966) UNTS vol.999, pg.171.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 (4 November 1950) ETS 5.
   Google Scholar
• European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (26 October 2012), 2012/C326/02.
   Google Scholar
• Case Law (ECtHR )
   Google Scholar
• Handyside v United Kingdom [1976] ECHR 5
   Google Scholar
• The Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No.1) [1979] ECHR 1
   Google Scholar
• Dudgeon v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 5
   Google Scholar
• Silver and Others v United Kingdom [1983] ECHR 5
   Google Scholar
• X and Y v Netherlands [1985] ECHR 4
   Google Scholar
• Olsson v Sweden (No.1) (1988) 11 EHRR 259
   Google Scholar
• Gaskin v United Kingdom [1989] ECHR 13
   Google Scholar
• Soering v United Kingdom [1989] ECHR 14
   Google Scholar
• Niemietz v Germany [1992] ECHR 80
   Google Scholar
• Keegan v Ireland [1994] 18 EHRR 342
   Google Scholar
• Z v Finland [1997] ECHR 10
   Google Scholar
• X, Y and Z v United Kingdom [1997] ECHR 20
   Google Scholar
• Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 588
   Google Scholar
• Peck v United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 44
   Google Scholar
• Odièvre v France [2003] ECHR 86.
   Google Scholar
• Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v Sweden [2006] ECHR 597
   Google Scholar
• S and Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 178
   Google Scholar
• Gardel v France [2009] ECHR 16428/05
   Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen v Finland [2014] ECHR 877
   Google Scholar
• Mozer v Republic of Moldova and Russia [2016] ECHR 213
   Google Scholar
• Bărbulescu v Romania [2017] ECHR 742
   Google Scholar
• Libert v France (2018) ECHR 185
   Google Scholar
• Case Law (CJEU)
   Google Scholar
• Joined Cases C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland and C-594/12 Seitlinger and Others [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:238
   Google Scholar
• Joined Cases C-203/15 Tele2 Sverige and C-698/15 Watson and Others [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:970
   Google Scholar