Authorized Authorized

234 WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2016
88. Dutton and others 2013.
89. Clover 2015.
90. Waldfogel 2011.
91. Internet Society 2014.
92. See http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/supreme
-court-reserves-orders-on-validity-of-section-66a
-of-it-act-742758.
93. See http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/.
94. See http://www.google.com/transparencyreport
/traffic/.
95. See http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/02/12
/china-internet-restrictions-hurting-business
-western-companies-say/.
96. This chapter similarly adopts an expansive view of
“cybersecurity” and delves more deeply into some
aspects of cybersecurity—such as privacy and
cybercrime—separately.
97. See Bauer and Dutton (2015), citing other sources.
98. Bauer and Dutton 2015.
99. Article 17 ICCPR; Article 11 ACHR; Article 8 ECHR;
and UNGA resolution 68/167 (2013) on the right to
privacy in the digital age.
100. YCharts, Facebook Market Cap (June 10, 2015); see
http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap.
101. WEF 2014.
102. Dutton and others 2013.
103. FTC 2013.
104. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the
-switch/wp/2014/11/13/facebook-rewrites-its
-privacy-policy-so-that-humans-can-understand-it/.
105. Polonetsky, Tene, and Jerome 2014.
106. World Bank and Second Muse 2014.
107. See http://georgemdallas.wordpress.com/2014/06/05
/making-sense-of-internet-platforms-network
-effects-and-two-sided-markets/.
108. Haddad and others 2014.
109. Berlingerio and others 2013.
110. See http://www.economist.com/news/leaders
/21627623-mobile-phone-records-are-invaluable
-tool-combat-ebola-they-should-be-made-available.
111. See Article 29 Data Protection Working Party 2014.
112. See https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents
/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report
-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internet-things
-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf.
113. Recent jurisprudence from both the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) support striking this balance.
In Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Ireland (Joined
Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Seitlinger and Others,
April 8, 2014), the ECJ ruled the Data Retention
Directive to be in violation of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights. In S and Marper v. UK 30562/04
[2008] ECHR 1581 (December 4, 2008), the ECHR,
using a proportionality analysis, found the United
Kingdom to be in breach of Article 8, holding that
the long-term retention of both fingerprints and
DNA samples interfered with an individual’s right
to privacy.
114. See http://www.bbc.com/news/technology
-29276955.
115. Doupi and others 2010.
116. Google Spain and Google vs. Agencia Española de Protección
de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González [Case
No. 131/12, 2014] European Court of Justice.
117. Ausloos 2012.
118. See Schwartz and Solove (2014). The EU generally
prefers legal instruments that position privacy as a
human right, whereas the United States relies more
on self-regulation, seeing privacy as a consumer
protection issue.
119. UNCTAD 2015
120. UN General Assembly 2013.
121. See the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity
and Personal Data Protection (July 27,
2014).
122. OECD 2013. The OECD Privacy Guidelines incorporate
a “Recommendation Concerning Guidelines Governing
the Protection of Privacy and Transborder
Flows of Personal Data.”
123. See http://www.apec.org/Groups/Committee
-on-Trade-and-Investment/Electronic-Commerce
-Steering-Group/Cross-border-Privacy-Enforcement
-Arrangement.aspx.
124. European Commission (EC 2010).
125. White House 2012.
126. Maximilian Schrems vs. Data Protection Commissioner
[Case No. C-362/14, 6 October 2015] European Court
of Justice.
127. The recent decision by the European Court of
Justice about the “right to be forgotten” (Google Spain
and Google vs. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos
[AEPD] and Mario Costeja González [Case No. 131/12,
2014]), which requires search engines to remove
links to data upon request if they are inadequate
or irrelevant, throws into question not only the balance
of data protection and freedom of expression
rights, but also extraterritorial application of law
and perhaps irreconcilable compliance obligations
of multinational companies processing data across
borders.
128. See https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2015/01
/articles/deadline-for-compliance-with-russian
-localization-law-set-for-september-1-2015/.
129. See http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015
/may/07/nsa-phone-records-program-illegal-court.
130. Castro 2013.
131. Dutton 2015.
132. The origins of the debate around net neutrality are
the U.S. Communications Act of 1996, as amended.
Under the act, “telecommunications services” are
regulated under common carrier rules, and other
communications services, such as data, are regulated
differently. In the United States, the internet