the European Court of justice (ECJ) said that the mass surveillance of innocent people may be legal in a preliminary ruling today. The Court of Justice is the highest court of the European Union, and it issues a preliminary decision by Advocate General about six months in advance of its final decision. preliminary ruling today allows mass surveillance on a state by state basis, but only when five conditions are met.
thereTwo years, the Court of Justice annulled Directive on the retention of data hated requiring all European Member States to have mass surveillance of innocent people, indicating that blankly it was not appropriate for a democratic society, and even defeated the existence of the directive retroactively. However, many European countries have created mass surveillance programs in response to the directive, and the matter was still open whether they were license to have such plans, even if they are not not necessary . to
Therefore, this case has been closely watched by many people: the 2014 case turned the mass surveillance of innocent people "mandatory" to "option" for European states. This case had the potential to turn it "option" to "prohibited", as was the case before 05. It was really important to get a clear yes or no court on the question whether mass surveillance innocent may be acceptable., violation of the presumption of innocence
the key point of why so many people are unhappy with this monitoring is that it is preemptive monitoring - people's privacy is invaded before they have committed a crime at all, if they commit a crime later and that the data would be relevant to an investigation from police. Therefore, it is literally about the mass surveillance of innocent people.
In a preliminary ruling today by the attorney general ECJ, in answering the question whether the mass surveillance of innocent people is legal, the court has set a business " maybe "
The preliminary ruling -. or "opinion" as it is formally known - holds that conservation innocent people data can be allowed, as determined by the courts in each State, but under very strict conditions. For example, it can never be used to prosecute petty crimes and civil cases - as for serious crimes
The five conditions set out by the Advocate General to allow data retention were ;.
- predictability. an innocent mass surveillance must be very strictly described in the law or regulations in a way that creates predictability, predictability and protection against arbitrary interference.
- Respect for private life. A mass surveillance of innocent must respect the gasoline Charter of Fundamental Rights. The word "essence" is important here because it literally requires mass surveillance complying with the spirit of the law, not the letter.
- serious crimes only. By balancing many competing interests, the preliminary decision indicates that only the fight against serious crime is sufficient to justify a general obligation to store data on everything and everyone. Convenience for surveys in general, or opportunistic criminal proceedings or civil, is not enough.
- Not least intrusive method available. notes that Advocate General of innocent mass surveillance is a highly intrusive measure, in order to be allowed, there must be no other method that provides the same effect with less intrusive to privacy. In addition, access to the stored data should be strictly limited to what is necessary to achieve the stated objective.
- Proportionality. In the words of Advocate General, that means "the grave risk [!] caused by [requiring mass surveillance] in a democratic society must not be disproportionate to its benefits in the fight against crime serious. "
Following this preliminary decision, we can expect the lobby Hollywood say that the non-profit sharing of culture and knowledge between individuals should be a" serious crime "in equality with murder and arson. the copyright industry has been heavily dependent on data retention and other invasive measures that deny privacy to defend its position, and such a statement would not be the the most surprising thing to come out of the copyright industry.
the final decision is expected in about six months, after which the legal challenges of individual status monitoring can begin. Meanwhile, privacy remains your own responsibility, as always.
0 Komentar