Within the research project,one of the first steps was to select the eight countries /jurisdictionsto be examined. The aim was to achieveawidelyspread representa-tion of regionsaround the globe, restrictingthe scope toamanageable number ofjurisdictions (eight)while allowing for diversity,explicitly focusing on the inclusionof nations in the global south. The aim of achievingdiversity is related especially tothe interdisciplinarity of the greater research project,asincultural studies, great-er differences likelyallow formore noticeable differences in empirical analysis and thus also make the drawing of conclusions easier.The jurisdictions selectedwereBrazil, China,the European Union, Ghana,Japan,Russia, Switzerland, andthe United States of America. Of these jurisdictions,the European Union standsout as the onlynon-nation state–nonetheless, the EU was selected due to the rel-evant laws on data protection,particularlywith the GDPR,existing primarily onthe EU level,rather than on that of the individual member states.Where legislationwas not on theEUlevel, Germanywas examined. In the cultural studiesreports,the focus of observation was also Germany. Thus, thejurisdiction/country exam-ined might be more properlydescribed as“EU/Germany”.Thegeneral approach to examining the individual jurisdictions’laws relevantfor personaldata disclosure has its roots in classical methods of comparative law,which divides the act of comparison into descriptive country report and thecom-parative evaluation.?In line with this method, the aim was to craft such descriptivecountry reports.In ordertoallow foracertain degree of homogeneity,adetailed report struc-ture was established, looking at various aspectsoflegal systems, fromabroad viewof the legal system ingeneral to more detailed individual provisions,inaniterativeapproach includinginterdisciplinary feedback from thebusiness information sys-tems and cultural studiesresearch groups.The report structurewas then used asthe outline for thecountry reports,and consisted of section and subsection titles aswell as keywords showing the intended meaning of theexamination. This reportstructurewas then disseminated between theauthorsofthe country reports,who researched and wrotethe reports.After the writing of the reports,aninternalreview process followed, incorporating interdisciplinary feedbackaswell as inputfrom legal experts well-versed in the examinedjurisdictions.