Author: P. Naga Lasya Sri, Christ Academy Institute of Law
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/naga-lasya-1ba581347?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
TO THE POINT
The digital revolution has changed society and promoted unprecedented connections and innovation. However, it also created complex legal and ethical dilemmas in the interface between cybersecurity and individual rights. Achieving an equilibrium between robust cybersecurity measures and the protection of fundamental rights such as segregation, freedom of expression, and access to information poses important challenges in the digital age. This structure deals with the actual legal framework and its unique situation that contributes to this balance, and commits to the correct perspective of cybersecurity.
ABSTRACT
Despite its benefits, the Internet has created individual identities and relevance for similar risks such as data injuries, cybercrime, and surveillance threats that could undermine basic human rights. This configuration analyzes the voltage between cybersecurity and individual right This will use transnational legal research, empirical research and global trends in this field. It promotes open, accountable, balanced cybersecurity strategies, ensuring the protection of human life and the integrity of digital systems. The constituent conclusion argues that digitization should strengthen individuality and not alienate, and emphasizes the importance of a right-handed approach to ensuring a fair digital future.
Use of Legal Jargon
The person in which certain information is reused is called a data subject. The proportional principle is a legal concept that must be restricted to important rights, not current topics. Due to the robustness of the government and the private reality, violations need to be prevented, investigated and resolved. The purpose of restricting rights is to ensure public safety and maintain public order. Process – Prevention is a legal action that ensures transparency, accountability, and the ability to remove compensation.
THE PROOF
Evidence conducted among legal experts, scientists, and the general public
Research and research are particularly concerned about the abuse of cybersecurity substances to limit the rights of people to limit segregation and freedom of expression. Case studies show that in surveillance and suppression it is not properly regulated, harming marginalized communities to substantial damage, exacerbating inequality, and undermining trust in digital systems. International law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Federation of Civil Political Rights (ICCPR), argues that privacy, freedom of speech and rights to access information can be used online and offline. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the General Data Protection Ordinance (GDPR) provide comprehensive protection measures and legal remedies for individuals related to personal data. The Budapest Treaty on Cybercrime defines standards for pursuing cybercrime and emphasizes the importance of maintaining human rights during investigation and enforcement.
CASE LAWS
K.S. Pattaswamy to the Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court of India, awarded quarantine as a quarantiner immediately after the constitution 21 of the constitution, and immediately after the state’s surveillance or collection of data was legal, necessary and proportional.
In Carpenter against the United States (2018), the US Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain permission to assess literary location data.
Big Family Watchv. GreatBritain (2021) has decided the European Court of Human Rights that large-scale surveillance security guards must include robust safeguards and independent supervision to determine clear norms of public security and segregation and integration.
Google Spain SL V. The European Court of Justice AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonz Rez (2014) showed the “right to forget” and allowed certain data to be applied from the hunt machine results to compensate for the quarantine of information.
CONCLUSION:
In the digital age, balancing cybersecurity with individual rights is paramount. Robust cybersecurity measures are critical for protecting sensitive information, critical infrastructure, and public security, but should not be used as an indication of unfair violations of quarantine or suppression of free speech. Various legal structures, such as borders, indigenous, or public structures, provide a means to achieve this balance. However, their effectiveness depends on strong compliance with principles of transparency, accountability, and proportionality. Ultimately, digital advancements should serve as a driving force for the committee as a denial, and acceptance of a right-based approach to cybersecurity is important to fostering a fair and customizable digital society.
FAQS
Why is cybersecurity important to ensuring human freedom?
Cybersecurity protects your personal identity from data injuries, identity theft and cybercrime in order to ensure your right to privacy, protection and high quality services.
Can cybersecurity measures violate fatal rights?
No: When surveillance, suppression, and data collection are overly broad, they can violate the principles of sequestration, freedom of expression, and access to information.
What are the legal principles that guide the balance between cybersecurity and protection of individual rights?
The principles of proportionality, diligence and guarantee that cybersecurity measures are necessary, appropriate, and respecting fundamental rights.
What laws do digital rights regulate at the global level?
UDHR, ICCPR, EMR and GDPR ensure the protection of privacy, freedom of speech and data security in the digital sector, among other things.
How can countries and associations guarantee a balance between cybersecurity and protection of individual rights?
Including bed linen isolation as a design feature by promoting open, responsible, proportional cybersecurity measures and providing appropriate solutions for rights.
