Cross-border Access to E-Evidence: Framing the Evidence. CEPS in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 2020-02, February 2020

This paper aims at situating the policy discourse accompanying current European Union (EU) initiatives on facilitating access by public authorities to data held by private companies, including in scenarios regarded as crossing jurisdictional borders. More concretely, it contextualises these initiatives in light of the absence of publicly available statistical information on some of the issues which are at the very core of these matters. Firstly, the paper presents the three main current developments, that is, the proposed ‘E-evidence package’, the negotiation of an EU-United States (US) agreement facilitating access to e-evidence for the purpose of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the participation of the EU in the negotiations in the Council of Europe on a second additional protocol to the Cybercrime Convention, analysing some of the recurrent messages associated with defending the necessity of all these different measures. The Brief then reviews some of the information upon which are being constructed arguments used to purport the need for these developments, by granting particular attention to the Impact Assessment that accompanied the publication of the ‘E-evidence package’. Finally, it suggests that the absence of statistical data might have implications for the assessment of the proportionality of eventual legislative measures

Equilibrio entre propiedad intelectual y protección de datos: el peso oscilante de un nuevo derecho

Les autoritats nacionals que imposen un processament sistemàtic de dades personals a subministradors de serveis d'internet en nom de la protecció de la propietat intel·lectual no troben un equilibri just entre l'interès dels titulars dels drets d'autor a l'hora d'assegurar el seu dret a la propietat intel·lectual amb la protecció de dades personals de les persones afectades per aquest processament. El Tribunal de Justícia de la Unió Europea (UE) ha ratificat dues vegades aquesta idea, en els judicis del 24 de novembre de 2011, en el cas C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA contra SABAM, i del 16 de febrer de 2011, en el cas C-360/10, SABAM contra Netlog NV. Tanmateix, el postul·lat es basa en una interpretació sense precedents del dret a la protecció de dades personals com a dret fonamental de la UE, i en un enfocament innovador per a equilibrar aquest dret i altres interessos. Aquest article en primer lloc presenta els judicis esmentats. En segon lloc, els ubica en el context de la jurisprudència del Tribunal de Luxemburg de dades personals, posant ènfasi en el poc freqüent reconeixement per part de la institució  de l'existència d'un dret de la UE per a aquesta protecció, que salvaguarda l'article 8 de la Carta dels Drets Fonamentals de la UE, i la seva interpretació canviant de l'objecte de la llei de protecció de dades de la UE. En tercer lloc, l'article descriu la tendència del Tribunal a afirmar la necessitat d'equilibrar els drets fonamentals aplicables al mateix temps que traspassa la responsabilitat de fer-ho. Amb aquest teló de fons, descriu les peculiaritats més sorprenents dels judicis esmentats.National authorities that impose the systematic processing of personal data on Internet service providers in the name of the protection of intellectual property do not strike a fair balance between copyright holders' interest in ensuring their right to intellectual property and the right to personal data protection of those affected by such processing. That idea has twice been upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU), in its judgements of 24 November 2011, in Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM, and of 16 February 2012, in Case C‑360/10, SABAM v Netlog NV. The postulate, however, is based on an unprecedented understanding of the right to the protection of personal data as an EU fundamental right, and on an innovative approach to balancing that right and any other interests. This paper firstly introduces both the aforementioned judgements. Secondly, it places them in the context of the Luxembourg Court's case law on the protection of personal data, emphasising the institution's infrequent recognition of the existence of an EU right to such protection, as safeguarded by Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and its changing interpretation of the object of EU data protection law. Thirdly, the paper describes the Court's tendency to affirm the need to balance the applicable fundamental rights while deferring responsibility for actually doing so. Against that backdrop, it describes the most striking peculiarities of the aforementioned judgements.        Las autoridades nacionales que imponen el tratamiento sistemático de datos personales a proveedores de servicios de internet en el nombre de la protección de la propiedad intelectual no garantizan un justo equilibrio entre el interés de los titulares de los derechos de autor de asegurar su derecho a la propiedad intelectual y el derecho a la protección de datos de carácter personal de las personas afectadas por el tratamiento. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (UE) ha mantenido en dos ocasiones esta idea, en sus sentencias del 24 de noviembre de 2011, en el asunto C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA contra SABAM, y del 16 de febrero de 2011, en el asunto C-360/10, SABAM contra Netlog NV. Sin embargo, el postulado se basa en una interpretación sin precedentes del derecho a la protección de datos de carácter personal como un derecho fundamental de la UE, así como en un enfoque innovador sobre la ponderación entre este derecho y otros intereses. Este artículo presenta en primer lugar los fallos citados. En segundo lugar, los ubica en el contexto de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Luxemburgo sobre la protección de datos personales, poniendo énfasis en el poco frecuente reconocimiento por parte de la institución de la existencia de un derecho de la UE de protección de datos de carácter personal, establecido por el artículo 8 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE, y sobre su cambiante interpretación sobre el objeto de la legislación de protección de datos de la UE. En tercer lugar, se describe la tendencia del Tribunal a afirmar la necesidad de equilibrar los derechos fundamentales aplicables pero delegando al mismo tiempo la responsabilidad de hacerlo. Con este telón de fondo, el artículo describe las peculiaridades más llamativas de las sentencias mencionadas

InAs/InP single quantum wire formation and emission at 1.5 microns

Isolated InAs/InP self-assembled quantum wires have been grown using in situ accumulated stress measurements to adjust the optimal InAs thickness. Atomic force microscopy imaging shows highly asymmetric nanostructures with average length exceeding more than ten times their width. High resolution optical investigation of as-grown samples reveals strong photoluminescence from individual quantum wires at 1.5 microns. Additional sharp features are related to monolayer fluctuations of the two dimensional InAs layer present during the early stages of the quantum wire self-assembling process.Comment: 4 pages and 3 figures submitted to Applied Physics Letter

Huber, Marper and Others: Throwing new light on the shadows of suspicion. INEX Policy Brief No. 8, June 2010

The proliferation of large-scale databases containing personal information, and the multiple uses to which they can be put, can be highly problematic from the perspective of fundamental rights and freedoms. This paper discusses two landmark decisions that illustrate some of the risks linked to these developments and point to a better framing of such practices: the Heinz Huber v. Germany judgement, from the European Court of Justice, and the S. and Marper v. United Kingdom ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights. The paper synthesises the lessons to be learnt from such decisions. Additionally, it questions the impact of the logic of pure prevention that is being combined with other rationales in the design and management of databases. This Policy Brief is published in the context of the INEX project, which looks at converging and conflicting ethical values in the internal/external security continuum in Europe, and is funded by the Security Programme of DG Enterprise of the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Research Programme. For more information visit: www.inexproject.e

Cross-border Access to Electronic Data through Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. State of the art and latest developments in the EU and the US. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe Papers No. 2018-07, November 2018

In the digital age, access to data sought in the framework of a criminal investigation often entails the exercise of prosecuting powers over individuals and material that fall under another jurisdiction. Mutual legal assistance treaties, and the European Investigation Order allow for the lawful collection of electronic information in cross-border proceedings. These instruments rely on formal judicial cooperation between competent authorities in the different countries concerned by the investigative measure. By subjecting foreign actors’ requests for data to domestic independent judicial scrutiny, they guarantee that the information sought during an investigation is lawfully obtained and admissible in court. At the same time, pressure is mounting within the EU and in the US to allow law enforcement authorities’ access to data outside existing judicial cooperation channels. Initiatives such as the European Commission’s proposals on electronic evidence and the CLOUD Act in the US foster a model of direct private–public crossborder cooperation under which service providers receive, assess and respond directly to a foreign law enforcement order to produce or preserve electronic information. This paper scrutinises these recent EU and US initiatives in light of the fundamental rights standards, rule of law touchstones, and secondary norms that, in the EU legal system, must be observed to ensure the lawful collection and exchange of data for criminal justice purposes. A series of doubts are raised as to the Commission e-evidence proposal and the CLOUD Act’s compatibility with the legality, necessity and proportionality benchmarks provided under EU primary and secondary law