Protection of Individual Privacy under the Continental and Anglo-Saxon Systems: Legal and Criminal Aspects


The present study tries to explain the legal position of privacy in the legal practices of two global different legal cultures: The Continental and Anglo-Saxon systems. This study aims at making sufficient explanation as regard the historical development of the concept and its terminology, and to define the scope of privacy protection and its several forms. Moreover, the study aims to undercover the legal treatment with privacy issues as related to legal protection of dwelling houses, private places, photography, personal communication and conversations, as well as the professional secret’s safeguards under both civil and common law systems.

Share and Cite:

Sharari, S. & Faqir, R. (2014). Protection of Individual Privacy under the Continental and Anglo-Saxon Systems: Legal and Criminal Aspects. Beijing Law Review, 5, 184-195. doi: 10.4236/blr.2014.53018.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Ahmed, M. H. (2009). Threats to Mobile Phone Users’ Privacy, a Project Report. St. John’s, NL: Memorial University of Newfoundland.
[2] Al. Zawbi, A. A. A. (2004). The Right to Privacy in Criminal Law: Comparative Legal Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Mosul: Faculty of Law, University of Mosul.
[3] Alexandra, R. (2013). Privacy in the 21t Century. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
[4] Al-Qaisi, N. (2010). Role of Ancient Iraqis in the Invention of the Shekel (in Arabic). Ma’altha Quarterly, 4, 4.
[5] Annual Reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing to the Commission on Human Rights (2001 to 2005) and to the Human Rights Council (since 2006): E/CN.4/2001/51, E/CN.4/2002/59, E/CN.4/2003/5, E/CN.4/2004/48, E/CN.4/2005/48, E/CN.4/2006/41, A/HRC/4/18.
[6] Banisar, D. (2011). The Right to Information and Privacy: Balancing Rights and Managing Conflicts. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
[7] Basu, S. (2010). Policy-Making, Technology and Privacy in India. The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 6, 65-88.
[8] Britz, H., & Ackermann, M. (2006). Information, Ethics and the Law. Van Schaik: Pretoria.
[9] Burdette, M. (2010). Is the Reporting Obligation of Attorneys in Terms of Section 29 of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 a Myth or a Reality? Unpublished LLM Dissertation, Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
[10] Burns, Y. (2001). Communications Law. Durban: Butterworths.
[11] Christensen, L. M. (2011). A Comparison of the Duty of Confidential and the Attorney-Client Privilege in the US and China: Developing a Rule of Law. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 34.
[12] Coles, T. R. (1991). Dose the Privacy Act of 1974 Protect Your Right to Privacy? An Examination of the Routine Use Exemption. The American University Law Review, 4.
[13] DeCew, J. W. (1989). The Scope of Privacy. Law and Philosophy, 5, 145-173.
[14] DeVito, J. A. (2002). Human Communication, Unite One, Part One Foundations of Human Communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
[15] Doyle, C. (2012). Privacy: An Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress.
[16] Edward, Q. C. (2003). The Professional Secret, Confidentiality and Legal Professional Privilege in Europe, an Update on the Report by D.A.O. Edward, QC, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE).
[17] Edward, Q. C. (2013). The Professional Secrets, Confidentiality and Legal Professional Privilege in the Nine Members States of the European Community, the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland.
[18] Gondwe, M. (2011). The Protection of Privacy in the Workplace: A Comparative Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Stellenbosch: Faculty of Law, Department of Mercantile Law, University of Stellenbosch.
[19] Hendrickx, F. (2002). Protection of Workers’ Personal Data in the EU: General Issues and Sensitive Data.
[20] Hill, P., & Allnutt, H. (2012). International Data Breach Law: A Comparative Guide. Canadian Litigation Counsel, The Harmonie Group.
[21] Hoofnagle, C. (2010). New Challenges to Data Protection Country Study B.1-United States of America. In D. Korff (Ed.), Comparative Study on Different Approach to New Privacy Challenges, in Particular in the Light of Technological Developments, Submitted by LRDP KANTOR Ltd. (Leader).
[22] Horne, S., & Konstantinou, E. (2012). Social Media and International Employment. In The Employment Law Review (3rd ed.).
[23] Ismail, S. M. (2013). A Critical Analysis on Telephone Tapping Conversation. Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences, 1, 1-6.
[24] Kamm, T., & Barrett, P. M. (1997). The Legal Picture: How Would Paparazzi Who Stalked Diana Fare in French Court? Wall Street Journal.
[25] Keenan, K. M. (2005). Invasion of Privacy. In Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
[26] Kilkelly, U. (2001). The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Human Right Handbook, No. 1. Germany: Council of Europe.
[27] Lehman, G. D. (1982). Invasion of Juror Privacy.
[28] Levin, A., & Jo Nicholson, M. (2005). Privacy Law in the United States, the EU and Canada: The Allure of the Middle Ground. University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal, 2, 357-395.
[29] Lyer, V. R. K. (1999). The Dialectics and Dynamics of Human Rights in India: Yesterday Today and Tomorrow, Tagore Law Lectures. New Delhi: Eastern Law House.
[30] Macák, K. (2014). That’s a Secret I Must Keep to Myself, Your Honor! Comparative and Theoretical Assessment of Legal Professional Privilege in England and on the Continent, the Common Law Review.
[31] Mushasha, M. K. (2013). Proving the Crime by Scientific Evidences. Law Faculty, United Arab Emirates University. Journal of Sharia and Law, 27.
[32] Neethling, J., Potgieter, J. M., & Visser, P. J. (2005). Neethling’s Law of Personality. Durban: Butterworths.
[33] Petronio, S., & Durham, W. T. (2008). Communication Privacy Management Theory. In L. A. Baxter, & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[34] Prosser, W. L. (1960). Privacy. California Law Review, 48, 383-423.
[35] Report of the National Academy of Science (1993). Panel Report Private Lives and Public Policies. Washington DC: National Academy of Science.
[36] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing to the 57th Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/ 2001/51, § 8, 25 January 2001.
[37] Saperstein, D. (2008). The European Counterterrorist as the Next US Cold Warrior: Why the United States Should Select from the German and British Models of Procedure, Evidence, and Oversight for National Security Wiretapping. Fordham International Law Journal, 32.
[38] Schied, J. (2013). Politics and Religion in Ancient Rome. Translated by Eric Rosencrantz, the Institute du Monde Contemporain.
[39] Serbanescu, T. (2014). Personal Communication: An Interactive Qualifying Project Analyzing the Use and Effects of Personal Communication in the Modern Age. A Project Study for the Bachelor of Science Degree, Faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
[40] Shan, N., & Pinto, T. (2006). Defamation and Privacy Law and Procedure in England. Germany & France: Taylor Wessing.
[41] Spronken, T., & Fermon, J. (2008). Protection of Attorney-Client Privilege in Europe. Penn State International Law Review, 27, Issue 2, 349.
[42] Tomlinson, E. A. (1993). The Saga of Wiretapping in France: What It Tells Us about the French Criminal Justice System. Louisiana Law Review, 53, 1091-1152.
[43] Verbauwhede, L. (2014). Legal Pitfalls in Taking or Using Photographs of Copyright Material, Trademarks and People.
[44] Wagner, W. J. (1971). The Development of the Theory of the Right to Privacy in France. Washington University Law Quarterly, 45, 195-227.
[45] Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
[46] Winn, P. A. (2010). Older than the Bill of Rights: The Ancient Origins of the Right to Privacy.
[47] Wong, K. (2009). Narrowing the Definition of Dwelling under the Fair Housing Act. UCLA Law Review, 56, 1866-1899.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.