2006
DOI: 10.1007/s11623-006-0195-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Datenschutzrechtliche Aspekte der Forschung mit genetischen Daten

Abstract: Die Verfasser setzen sich mit der Frage auseinander, unter welchen Voraussetzungen sich eine für eine Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten verantwortliche Stelle das für eine Deanonymisierung erforderliche Zusatzwissen zurechnen lassen muss und unterbreiten hierzu einen Defintionsvorschlag. 1 Einführung Wird in der Medizin humangenetische Forschung betrieben, liegt die datenschutzrechtliche Brisanz auf der Hand: Die genetische Information eines Menschen gibt Auskunft über seine Abstammung, die ethnische Herkun… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
3

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, it is almost impossible to determine whether data in a specific project allows data to be rendered anonymous or aliased (under section 40 [2] of FDPA). The requirements for informing the donor and asking him for his permission are even more problematic, since obtaining consent for each step of processing is nearly impossible (Arning, Forgó and Krügel 2006). It is yet to be determined whether the interests of the data subjects (especially the RIS) can be protected by law within the context of major biobanking projects, such as those in Iceland, Estonia and England.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, it is almost impossible to determine whether data in a specific project allows data to be rendered anonymous or aliased (under section 40 [2] of FDPA). The requirements for informing the donor and asking him for his permission are even more problematic, since obtaining consent for each step of processing is nearly impossible (Arning, Forgó and Krügel 2006). It is yet to be determined whether the interests of the data subjects (especially the RIS) can be protected by law within the context of major biobanking projects, such as those in Iceland, Estonia and England.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, genetic data is mentioned neither by DIR 95/46/EC nor the FDPA, despite longstanding recognition of the importance of its express inclusion in the Directive in order to achieve its special protection (Simitis 2006). Nonetheless, genetic data may be considered "health-related content of information" under data concerning health (Dammann and Simitis 1997, Ehmann and Helfrich 1999, Schulte in den Bäumen 2007 or as 'data concerning health' under section 3 [9] of FDPA and should thus be treated as sensitive data (Arning et al 2006, Däubler 2001, Schladebach 2003. A determination on this point is not really necessary, since research in the area of biomedicine is always related to the "healthrelated content of information".…”
Section: Sensitive Data Under Section 3 [9] Of Fdpamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2 of the Austrian Federal Act concerning the Protection of Personal Data, available at: http://www.dsk.gv.at/site/ 6230/default.aspx. (See alsoArning et al 2006. )…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Bedenkt man, dass das menschliche Genom ca. 3 Aufwand, bspw. also einer weiteren genetischen Untersuchung hergestellt werden könnte [3].…”
unclassified