RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI우수등재

      개인정보보호법상 자동화된 결정 조항의 해석 = Interpretation of automated decision provisions under the Personal Information Protection Act of Korea

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A108992021

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Automated decision-making, despite its high efficiency and consistency, raises various concerns. The new provision on the rights of data subjects in response to automated decision-making (Art. 37-2 of the amended Korean PIPA) is expected to address these concerns. The provision has been influenced by the EU GDPR, but there are still differences in terms of structure and content. This study attempts to compare the two legal systems and derive improvement measures.
      The above-mentioned article has the following differences compared to the GDPR: i) It strengthens the requirements for the right to object. ii) It clarifies the legal nature of the right to object as ‘right.’ iii) It does not address the data subject protection measures in cases where the right to object is not granted. iii) It explicitly approves the right to explanation. iv) It specifies the obligation to disclose information. v) It does not have any provisions on profiling. vi) It does not provide special protection for sensitive information or children in relation to automated decision-making.
      The main issues requiring legislative improvement are as follows: With regard to the data subject's right to object, it is necessary to clearly regulate the effect of exercising the right to object and to specify the legitimate grounds on which the personal information processor may be exempted. With regard to the right to explanation, it is necessary to clarify and specify the requirement for the right to explanation, to specify categories of information subject to the explanation, and to grant immunity to the controller with legitimate grounds in the case of the obligation to disclose.
      번역하기

      Automated decision-making, despite its high efficiency and consistency, raises various concerns. The new provision on the rights of data subjects in response to automated decision-making (Art. 37-2 of the amended Korean PIPA) is expected to address th...

      Automated decision-making, despite its high efficiency and consistency, raises various concerns. The new provision on the rights of data subjects in response to automated decision-making (Art. 37-2 of the amended Korean PIPA) is expected to address these concerns. The provision has been influenced by the EU GDPR, but there are still differences in terms of structure and content. This study attempts to compare the two legal systems and derive improvement measures.
      The above-mentioned article has the following differences compared to the GDPR: i) It strengthens the requirements for the right to object. ii) It clarifies the legal nature of the right to object as ‘right.’ iii) It does not address the data subject protection measures in cases where the right to object is not granted. iii) It explicitly approves the right to explanation. iv) It specifies the obligation to disclose information. v) It does not have any provisions on profiling. vi) It does not provide special protection for sensitive information or children in relation to automated decision-making.
      The main issues requiring legislative improvement are as follows: With regard to the data subject's right to object, it is necessary to clearly regulate the effect of exercising the right to object and to specify the legitimate grounds on which the personal information processor may be exempted. With regard to the right to explanation, it is necessary to clarify and specify the requirement for the right to explanation, to specify categories of information subject to the explanation, and to grant immunity to the controller with legitimate grounds in the case of the obligation to disclose.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼