News Science

News Science

The Conceptualization of Personal Data Protection from Privacy in Cyberspace: A Comparative Study of the United States and the European Legal Tradition

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Amin Shahnaz 1
Hamid Bahremand 2
Abbas Sheikholeslami 3
Mohammad Farjiha 4
1 1. PhD Candidate of Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Law, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran. Email: amin.shahnaz@iau.ac.ir
2 2. Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law , University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. Email: Bahremand@ut.ac.ir
3 Associate Professor, Law Department, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran. Email: Sheikholeslami@mshdiau.ac.ir
4 4. Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Email:Farajihay@modares.ac.ir
10.22034/lrsi.2026.523001.1365
Abstract
Objective: This study elucidates the conceptual shift from traditional privacy doctrines to the independent notion of personal data protection within cyberspace. Traditional privacy frameworks - grounded in protection against physical intrusion and rooted in negative rights - prove inadequate in addressing the challenges posed by contemporary surveillance regimes and big data analytics. A comparative examination of the American tradition (characterized by liberal individualism and a negative, non-interventionist approach) and the European tradition (underpinned by human dignity and a positive, regulatory orientation) demonstrates that personal data protection constitutes a fundamental transformation in rights discourse. This evolution carries significant implications for journalism, investigative reporting, and media information management.
Method: This research employs a comparative analytical method, utilizing qualitative content analysis of legislation, judicial precedents, and academic texts from both American and European jurisdictions. The study traces the conceptual transition from location-based privacy to personal data protection in cyberspace through documentary and library-based sources.
Results: The findings reveal a pronounced dichotomy in approaches. The American tradition - grounded in individualism, negative liberty, and state non-intervention - defines privacy through the lens of individual control and the right to be let alone, thereby producing a reactive, fragmented, and inherently limited framework that struggles to counteract the power of technology monopolies. By contrast, the European tradition, anchored in human dignity and the regulatory state, has established a proactive and integrated framework, exemplified by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This model recognizes affirmative rights - including access, rectification, erasure, and compensation - imposes binding obligations on data processors, and offers a clearer legal basis for reconciling journalistic freedoms with data privacy protections.
Conclusion: This paper ultimately argues that personal data protection has evolved into an independent, affirmative, and third-generation right, complementing and, in many respects, surpassing the negative and defensive right to privacy. The relative success of the European model in balancing individual and collective interests - through the mandates of transparency, accountability, and Privacy by Design - presents a framework that is adaptable, yet requires intelligent localization for developing legal systems, including in the domain of regulating media and journalistic activities. The future of governance in the digital age depends upon embracing this paradigm shift and establishing effective regulatory institutions capable of addressing emerging challenges.
Keywords
Cyberspace
Personal Data
Privacy
Europe
United States
 
References:
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509.
Alfino, M., & Mayes, G. R. (2002). Reconstructing the right to privacy. Social Theory and Practice, 29(1), 4.
Ansari, B. (2014). Rights of privacy (Vol. 15). SAMT Publications. (in Persian)
Ansari, B., Attar, S., Salehi, A. H., & Zand, H. (2022). Comparative study of personal data protection in Europe, America, China, and Iran (pp. 94–108). Sahami Publishing Company. (in Persian)
Attar, S. (2016). The protection of privacy within virtual social networks (p. 41). Khorsandi. (in Persian)
Basu, S. (2012). Privacy protection: A tale of two cultures. Journal of Law & Technology, 6(1), 10.
Blume, P. (2010). Data protection and privacy—basic concepts in a changing world. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 56, 155.
Buttarelli, G., Giakoumopoulos, C., & O'Flaherty, M. (2018). Handbook on European data protection law (p. 57). Publications Office of the European Union.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. (2018). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/
Cofone, I. (2017). The dynamic effect of information privacy law. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 18(2), 519–547.
De L., K. M. M., & Bergstra. (2007). History of privacy. In The history of information security: A comprehensive handbook (1st ed., p. 3). Elsevier.
Dorraji, E., & Barcys, M. (2014). Privacy in digital age: Dead or alive?! Regarding the new EU data protection regulations. Social Technologies, 4(2), 315.
Farhadi Alashti, Z. (2016). Situational prevention of cybercrimes (Strategies and challenges) (p. 13). Mizan. (in Persian)
Ferretti, F. (2014). Data protection and the legitimate interest of data controllers: Much ado about nothing or the winter of rights? Common Market Law Review, 51(3), 855–884.
Gaskin v. Finland, Application No. 001-57491 (1989). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-57491
Ghajjar Ghayoonloo, S. (2012). Introduction to cyber law (An approach to the sociology of development law and prerequisites for legislation in cyberspace) (p. 343). Mizan. (in Persian)
Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González, Case C-131/12 (2014). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62012CJ0131
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep381/usrep381479/usrep381479.pdf
Heydari, M. (2019). Manteq-e hemli [Predicate logic] (pp. 64–65). Astan Quds Razavi Publishing and Printing Institute. (in Persian)
Lukacs, A. (2016). What is privacy? The history and definition of privacy. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 56, 257.
Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner [GC], Case C-362/14 (2015). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62014CJ0362
Mohseni, F. (2015). Information privacy (A criminal law study in the laws of Iran, the United States of America, and Imamiyah jurisprudence) (p. 6). Imam Sadiq University (AS). (in Persian)
Mousazadeh, I., & Mostafazadeh, F. (2012). A look at the concept and foundations of the right to privacy in the common law legal system. Public Law Review, 1(2), 57. (in Persian)
Petrucco, F. (2019). The right to privacy and new technologies: Between evolution and decay. Media Law Magazine, 1, 5.
Post, R. C. (2001). Three concepts of privacy. Georgetown Law Journal, 89, 2089–2095.
Purtova, N. (2010). Private law solution in European data protection: Relationship to privacy, and waiver of data protection rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 28(2), 247–265.
Roman Zakharov v. Russia*, Application No. 47143/06 (2015). Police and Human Rights Resources. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-159565
Sinha, A. (2022). Social networks and the politics of power (M. Jazini & A. Pasandepour, Trans.). Pileh Publications. (in Persian)
Solove, D. J. (2002). Conceptualizing privacy. California Law Review, 90, 1087–1155.
Wright, D., & Raab, C. (2014). Privacy principles, risks and harms. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 28(3), 277–286.