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 Evolution of Internet Legal Regulation in Addressing Crime and Terrorism

Internet regulation has evolved from self-regulation to the criminalization of conduct to state control of information available, accessed and submitted. Criticism has been leveled at the different forms of state control and the methods employed to enforce state control. After the terrorist attack on the USA on 11 September 2001, governments justify Internet state control as a law enforcement and national security tool against the abuse and misuse of the Internet for the commission of serious crimes, such as phishing, child pornography; terrorism and copyright infringement. Some Internet users and civil rights groups perceive state control as an abomination which results in an unjustifiable infringement of civil rights. Since countries worldwide are focusing attention on the control of information on the Internet, the debate in respect of state control and the consequences of state control is relevant on a global level as it impacts on all Internet-connected countries. Keywords: legal regulation, legal evolution, Internet, Internet state control, crime, terroris

NATO, Cyber Defense, and International Law

Cybersecurity threats pose challenges to individuals, corporations, states, and intergovernmental organizations. The emergence of these threats also presents international cooperation on security with difficult tasks. This essay analyzes how cybersecurity threats affect the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is arguably the most important collective defense alliance in the world.1 NATO has responded to the cyber threat in policy and operational terms (Part I), but approaches and shifts in cybersecurity policies create problems for NATO— problems that NATO principles, practices, and politics exacerbate in ways that will force NATO to address cyber threats more aggressively than it has done so far (Part II). Whether NATO can adapt its approach before a major cybersecurity crisis affects the Alliance’s ability to carry out its missions effectively remains, at he present time, in doubt

The United Nations and the regulation of cybersecurity

No description supplie