The challenge to privacy from ever increasing state surveillance: a comparative perspective

This article explores how internet surveillance in the name of counterterrorism challenges privacy. Introduction International terrorism poses serious threats to the societies it affects. The counter-terrorism measures adopted since 2001 have sought to limit the advance of terrorism but, in the process, also created enormous challenges for (transnational) constitutionalism. Long-held and cherished principles relating to democracy, the rule of law and the protection of a wide range of human rights have come under increasing strain. Legislative authority to shoot down hijacked aircrafts or to use lethal drones against suspected terrorists affect the right to life; waterboarding of prisoners and other inhumane practices contravene the prohibition of torture; extraordinary renditions and black sites circumvent constitutionally protected rights and processes, including the right to freedom and security, the right to a fair trial and due process for suspected terrorists; ill-defined terrorism offences undermine the rule of law and personal freedom; blanket suspicion of Muslims as terror sympathisers impacts on freedom of religion and leads to unfair discrimination; and mass surveillance of communication sweeps away the right to privacy. This article explores how internet surveillance in the name of counterterrorism challenges privacy. In Part II, the article analyses the international dimension of counter-terrorism measures and the conceptualisation of data protection and privacy in the European Union (‘EU’), the United States of America (‘US’) and Australia. Part III compares the different concepts of data protection and privacy, and explores the prospects of an international legal framework for the protection of privacy. Part IV concludes that work on international data protection and privacy standards, while urgently needed, remains a long-term vision with particularly uncertain prospects as far as antiterrorism and national security measures are concerned

The Obama Administration and the Press: Leak Investigations and Surveillance in Post-9/11 America

U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists

Democratic heroism - Directive 2006/24/EC and the struggle for the soul of democracy

In the debate on how to make democracy strong against terrorism, it has been suggested that the Western democracies need new protective measures. This paper argues that, far from protecting democracy, such measures may in fact undermine the very values and virtues that make democracy possible. Information freedom, the right to due process and the protection of privacy are all fundamental for the functioning of a democratic society. Despite this, recent years have seen a string of new laws, both in the US and in Europe, that in different ways curtail key civil liberties. Even countries entirely unaffected by international terrorism, such as Sweden, have passed new legislation allowing electronic surveillance and covert listening devices. Taking the recent Swedish legislation as its starting point, the paper will also address the related EC directive on data retention (2006/24/EC). A key question posed is to what extent democracy has to be based on courage or even “heroism” if it is to remain true to itself when confronted by terrorism or other existential threats

Coleta de dados de localização no processo penal – Parâmetros europeus (EU e Strasbourg)

This article deals with the problem of collecting, retaining and processing location data for use in criminal proceedings. The collection of location data is an interference with the right to privacy (the Article 8 of the ECHR, the Article 7 of the Charter). However, such interference is permissible if it pursues the aims indicated in Article 8(2) of the ECHR (prevention of and fight against serious crime, protection of general security, national security). Therefore, the question arises as to when the procedural authorities may obtain location data (what offences may justify interference with the right to privacy) and what conditions should be met by national law with regard to this issue.  The ECtHR and the CJEU are increasingly dealing with cases that concern the collection of location data in real time and data retention by telecommunications service providers. This requires an assessment of whether a European standard has now been developed and, if so, what is the standard?Este artigo analisa o problema da coleta, custódia e processamento de dados de localização para uso em processos penais. A coleta de dados de localização é uma restrição ao direito à privacidade (art. 8, CEDH; art. 8, Carta de Direitos Fundamentais da UE). Contudo, isso é permitido se almejar o objetivo indicado no art. 8(2) da CEDH (prevenção e combate a crimes graves, proteção da segurança pública e nacional). Assim, a questão surge sobre quando as autoridades podem obter os dados de localização (quais crimes podem justificar essa restrição à privacidade) e em que condições devem ser respeitadas pelas legislações nacionais sobre o tema. O TEDH e o Tribunal de Justiça da UE estão lidando cada vez mais com casos relacionados à coleta de dados de localização em tempo real e a sua custódia pelos provedores de serviços de telecomunicações. Isso a verificação de se os parâmetros europeus foram desenvolvidos e, em caso positivo, quais são eles

Strengthening e-crime legislation in the UAE: learning lessons from the UK and the EU

The electronic revolution brought with it technological innovations that are now integral to communication, business, commerce and the workings of governments all over the world. It also significantly changed the criminal landscape. Globally it has been estimated that crime conducted via the internet (e-crime) costs more than €290 billion annually. Formulating a robust response to cybercrime in law is a top priority for many countries that presents ongoing challenges. New cybercrime trends and behaviours are constantly emerging, and debates surrounding legal provisions to deal with them by increasing online tracking and surveillance are frequently accompanied by concerns of the rights of citizens to freedom, privacy and confidentiality. This research compares the ways that three different legislative frameworks have been navigating these challenges. Specifically, it examines the legal strategies of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). The UAE is comparatively inexperienced in this area, its first law to address e-crime was adopted in 2006, sixteen years after the UK, and so the express purpose of this study is to investigate how e-crime legislation in the UAE can be strengthened. Drawing on a range of theoretical resources supplemented with empirical data, this research seeks to provide a comprehensive account of how key e-crime legislation has evolved in the UAE, the UK and the EU, and to evaluate how effective it has been in tackling cybercrime. Integral to this project is an analysis of some of the past and present controversies related to surveillance, data retention, data protection, privacy, non-disclosure and the public interest. An important corollary of this research is how e-crime legislation is not only aligned with political and economic aims, but when looking at the UAE, the discrete ways that legislation can be circumscribed by cultural, social and religious norms comes into focus

Lessons Learned Too Well: Anonymity in a Time of Surveillance

It is no longer reasonable to assume that electronic communications can be kept private from governments or private-sector actors. In theory, encryption can protect the content of such communications, and anonymity can protect the communicator\u27s identity. But online anonymity-one of the two most important tools that protect online communicative freedom-is under practical and legal attack all over the world. Choke-point regulation, online identification requirements, and data-retention regulations combine to make anonymity very difficult as a practical matter and, in many countries, illegal. Moreover, key internet intermediaries further stifle anonymity by requiring users to disclose their real names. This Article traces the global development of technologies and regulations hostile to online anonymity, beginning with the early days of the Internet. Offering normative and pragmatic arguments for why communicative anonymity is important, this Article argues that anonymity is the bedrock of online freedom, and it must be preserved. U.S. anti-anonymity policies not only enable repressive policies abroad but also place at risk the safety of anonymous communications that Americans may someday need. This Article, in addition to providing suggestions on how to save electronic anonymity, calls for proponents of anti-anonymity policies to provide stronger justifications for such policies and to consider alternatives less likely to destroy individual liberties. In a time where surveillance technology and laws demanding identification abound, protecting the right to speak freely without fear of official retribution is critical to protecting these liberties

Protecting Information Privacy

This report for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission) examines the threats to information privacy that have emerged in recent years, focusing on the activities of the state. It argues that current privacy laws and regulation do not adequately uphold human rights, and that fundamental reform is required. It identifies two principal areas of concern: the state’s handling of personal data, and the use of surveillance by public bodies. The central finding of this report is that the existing approach to the protection of information privacy in the UK is fundamentally flawed, and that there is a pressing need for widespread legislative reform in order to ensure that the rights contained in Article 8 are respected. The report argues for the establishment of a number of key ‘privacy principles’ that can be used to guide future legal reforms and the development of sector-specific regulation. The right to privacy is at risk of being eroded by the growing demand for information by government and the private sector. Unless we start to reform the law and build a regulatory system capable of protecting information privacy, we may soon find that it is a thing of the past