Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

and the information may only be used for that purpose.325Individuals have the right to see data on themselves, yet full andinformed consent by the data subject may be used to overridemany of the obligations imposed by the Directive.326 Mostimportantly, Article 25 of the EU Directive stipulates that EUbusinesses cannot disclose data to members of third party statesunless it is shown that effective data protection regimes are inplace in those states. In April 2000 Canada responded by enactingsimilar obligations in the Privacy and Electronic DocumentsAct.327 Likewise, in December 2000 Australia enacted the PrivacyAmendment (Private Sector) Act.328 In the United States,legislation has been avoided. In its place, the United StatesDepartment of Commerce has promulgated safe harbour rules,which act as an optional self-regulatory structure. The efficacy ofsuch a regime is still in question.In the United States, state constitutional law and other formsof specific state privacy legislation329 may also be relevant in somecases; e.g., Californian Constitution Article 1, Section (1): “Allpeople are by nature free and independent and have inalienablerights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty,acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing andobtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”330 Through thisprovision, “California accords privacy the constitutional status ofan inalienable right on a par with defending life and possessingproperty.”331 “Privacy is protected not merely against stateaction; it is considered an inalienable right that may not beviolated by anyone.”332More recently, litigation in the United States against the325. Id.326. See id.; see also Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 8(reinforcing this idea).327. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C., ch. 5(2000) (Can.).328. Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act, 2000, no. 155 (Austl.).329. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1749.60 (Supermarket Club Card Legislation)(2001), 1708.7 (2001) (Cyberstalking); Dorothy J. Glancy, Privacy and IntelligentTransportation Technology, 11 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 151, 189-202(1995).330. Cal. Const. art. 1, § 1.331. Luck v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 267 Cal. Rptr. 618, 625 (Cal. Ct. App.1990) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 939 (1990).332. Porten v. Univ. of S.F., 134 Cal. Rptr. 839, 842 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (citationsomitted).