Digital Revolution Spurs Economic Growth: Legal Questions Around Culture Promotion & Protection - Essay Sample

Introduction

In the current socio-economic environment, there is a rise in legal questions with regards to the promotion of culture as well as the protection of economic interests. The revolution of digital media, for instance, has not only had a huge impact on various aspects of human life such as interpersonal interactions, entertainment, movement, education, security and communication, but also supported innovation and provided a platform for the empowerment of science thus spurring economic growth (Geist, 2015). The social and economic benefits of digital media cannot be overlooked since participants are not merely consumers but also producers or contributors of digital content too. However, digital transformation has brought about challenges that must be urgently addressed. Canada is one of the states that are faced with challenges resulting from digital media participation. Practical laws and legal frameworks have been placed to try offer valid solutions to the challenges facing the administration, production and consumption of digital media. A legal framework is a set of regulatory, legislative, managerial but constitutional rules that form the foundation of a certain guideline (Morgan, 2017). The design of a legal framework is highly dependent on the political, territorial and government system within a country or region. The main objective of any legal framework is to evaluate a specific issue fundamentally related to the administrative regulations so as to provide the appropriate direction (Geist, 2015; Overbeck, Belmas & Shepard, 2019). In Canada, there are two major legal frameworks, The Privacy Act and PIPEDA, applicable to digital media cultures, and they seem highly geared towards the protection of economic interests. I, therefore, agree with the view that laws and legal frameworks that apply to digital media are required in order to grow the economic wealth of a country and are not required to protect participants in digital media cultures.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The main aim of every territorial government in the world is to ensure economic growth and self-reliance. This means that any activity that slows down economic growth is intentionally ignored or stopped. However, if the digital media participants in the same territory are not safeguarded, it becomes difficult to spur economic growth (Vago, 2015). The digital media is one of the major elements of economic growth. The Canadian courts have for long depended on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to guard the citizens against irrational invasion of privacy. In view of this, the government of Canada has developed legal frameworks and laws related to digital media and data protection so as to build confidence among its citizens and investors. These include the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (Bennett & Raab, 2017). Nevertheless, the details in these laws and frameworks seem to favor economic growth and sometimes overlook the welfare of the digital media participants despite the fact that these participants are involved in both the production and consumption of digital data.

The Privacy Act

Overview and Implication

The Privacy Act is a federal legislation in Canada that came into force in 1983 and highlights the provisions for dealing with personal information (Bennett & Raab, 2017). The Act defines personal information as an identifiable individual's data regarding their financial information, race, ethnicity, marital status, religion, age, DNA, social insurance number or any other data that can identify a person as an individual (Privacy Act, 1985). Pursuant to sections 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12 of the Act, although there are stipulated exceptions, a government body may not gather, disclose or correct an individual's personal data without informing the individual about the purpose of such an action unless it directly relates to a specific operating program (Privacy Act, 1985). The Act also specifies, in sections 19 to 28, cases when the government may deny access to personal data even if the individual requests for it. The government may deny access if such a request obstructs some government's responsibilities, the information requested does not benefit the individual in any way, or the information requested contains data belonging to a different individual (Privacy Act, 1985) Such regulations are practicable. However, the regulations have at times resulted in unnecessary delays. The Office of the privacy commissioner of Canada has even complained that some federal departments have subjected Canadians to unnecessary delays, spanning over a year whenever they request for personal information (Overbeck et al., 2019). The office has had to intervene on several occasions. Additionally, the Privacy Act is only applicable to those federal government bodies that are registered in the Privacy Act Schedule of Institutions thus leaving out very many other organizations (Bennett & Raab, 2017). Such challenges demonstrate that since the Privacy Act is subject to limitations, it may not necessarily protect the participants in the digital media cultures. As long as the economy is functioning as expected, the government is not keen on enforcing the protection of the participants of the digital media cultures since their impact is limited.

The Privacy Act was enacted over three decades ago when technology was not as advanced as it is today. Its primary purpose was to extend the then Canadian laws protecting the privacy of personal data held by government institutions and give them the right to access this information (Overbeck et al., 2019). Therefore, it may not apply sufficiently to the protection of Canadians' privacy in the digital era. Some corporate data brokers have the ability to gain access to personal information for their own consumption or to provide it to third parties without the consent of the affected individuals who own the data (Vago, 2015). Some of this information may be erroneous and consequently damaging. For example, the Federal court case, Mirza Nammo v. TransUnion of Canada Inc., 2010 FC 1284, was based on an error that must have been made during the collection of personal information yet the plaintiff had not gotten a chance to either make corrections or verify the information. According to Geist (2015), the applicant claimed that he was subjected to a devastating credit report that belonged to a person different from him when he tried to secure a loan from the Royal Bank of Canada. When he made enquiries as to why he could not secure the loan, he was informed that the data from TransUnion showed that he was not creditworthy. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that CBV Collection Services Ltd., a collection agency, had given them inaccurate information thus the error. TransUnion promptly corrected the error and delivered the appropriate documents to the concerned parties. However, Nammo was not contented thus his decision to seek legal redress (Geist, 2015). This case demonstrates the challenges that are likely to stem from an act that is not regularly revised to conform to current trends. The main issue is that as long as it does not affect the territorial economy, then it is not urgent. This explains why it is rational to conclude that laws and legal frameworks that apply to digital media are required in order to grow the economic wealth of a country and are not required to protect participants in digital media cultures. Otherwise, the government would be keener on the revision of outdated laws.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)

Due to the inadequacies of the Privacy Act, Canada set out the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), in 2000, under the digital privacy act to enhance the protection of the privacy and rights of Canadians within the private sector.

Overview and Implication

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) came into force in 2004 although it had been passed by parliament three years before, and is founded on principles that regulate privacy concerns with regards to security measures, transparency, data retention and consent (Overbeck et al., 2019). The enforcement and oversight of PIPEDA is collectively done by both the Federal Court of Canada and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. While the Federal Court orders for compliance, awards damages and publishes notices, the Privacy Commissioner on the other hand mediates privacy disputes, investigates complaints, reports noncompliance, and seeks legal redress from the Federal court (Morgan, 2017). The main aim of the Act was to protect personal information in the process of promoting e-commerce as well as to conform to the data protection directive stipulated by the European Union Council, Directive 95/46/EC, which forbids member states to trade personal information with those states that fail to observe strict privacy standards (Morgan, 2017). This implies that the protection of the privacy of the digital media participant was overtaken by the need to protect economic interests of Canada.

Privacy Tort and Defenses in Digital Media

If a person causes any harm to another, then they ought to face the consequences of their action as the law of torts applies. This law encompasses uncodified civil crimes relating to unreasonable acts such as trespass, nuisance, emotional distress, statutory and general negligence, economic loss and other damages as specified by the tort law (Mizrahi, 2018). With regards to the law of torts, Although PIPEDA gives data owners the right to access their personal information within the private organizations and even go on to challenge the accuracy of this information, the Act does not necessarily provide a sufficient data protection support system (Vago, 2015). This puts the privacy of data at the risk of invasion.

There have been cases of private individuals accessing private information of other individuals within some private organizations. One such case is Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 in which the Ontario Court of Appeal established that an offence had been committed. The court recognized a fresh tort which it referred to as the tort of "Intrusion upon Seclusion" since it was related to the invasion of individual privacy (Cooligan & Hohnstein, 2015). For one to substantiate that an intrusion on seclusion offence has been committed, the provisions include the demonstration that there was unauthorized intentional invasion of their private affairs, the invasion was reasonably offensive thus causing mental anguish, and that the intrusion involved a private matter (Mizrahi, 2018). In the case in point, Tsige and Jones were employees of the Bank of Montreal (BMO). This gave them the opportunity to have unlimited access to the data available in the bank's database. Tsige, who is in a common-law relationship with Jones' ex-husband, takes advantage of this opportunity to unlawfully access Jones' personal accounts at the BMO bank. Although Tsige admitted to the offence and apologized, Jones went ahead to seek legal redress since she felt that her privacy had been invaded despite the fact that Tsige had neither published nor recorded the data she accessed. A summary judgment was awarded against Jones who appealed. The Court of Appeal, on its part, considered that since PIPEDA deals with organizations, it could not address this case although Jones would have the alternative of suing BMO for not protecting her data and harboring a rogue employee. It therefore, quoted Professor Prosser's reasoning (Restatement (Second) of Torts (2010) cited in Cooligan & Hohnstein, 2015). to award Jones $10,000 for damages. This case demonstrates how torts apply to...