the European Court of human rights found that the mass surveillance without bulk mandate violates fundamental human rights. The case was brought by Roman Zakharov against Russia, and is mandatory for all members of the Council of Europe - meaning the European Union and many more. It is difficult to see how it does not expose many European governments to prosecute their citizens for violations of human rights.
The verdict, issued December 4, grants Zakharov 40,000 euros in court costs against Russia for violation of Article 8 - the right to privacy - the European Convention on Human Rights the man. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is based in Luxembourg and is confusingly a completely separate entity from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Strasbourg. The ECHR is not the highest court of the European Union, but has the sole task of enforcing the European Convention on Human Rights, which has some 50 signatories, including Russia. To add to the confusion, the European Convention on Human Rights is part of the Constitution - the Constitution or who-must-not-be-named technical-a-Constitution - of the European Union. Therefore, the ECHR also decides on the Constitution of the European Union. This was one of these cases.
Russia, as many European countries passed laws "security" that allow warrantless wiretapping bulk of various types. This mass surveillance has been progressively put in place, and a very brief supporting a legal point of view, this did not prevent monitoring hawks to push through opportunistic times. This is an example where the division of power and independent branches of government seems to prove its value, this international court said is enough.
In particular, it is interesting to note that the Court saw no need for Zakharov show his privacy had actually been violated - the Court held that it was sufficient the framework was in place, and there was no way to know if a violation has occurred because there is no licensing and no oversight. Choice quote via Amelia Andersdotter, former Pirate MEP:
270. The Court considers that the way the system of secret surveillance operates in Russia gives the security services and police technical means to circumvent the authorization procedure and intercept communications without prior judicial authorization. Although the possibility of improper by a dishonest official action negligence or excessive zeal can never be completely ruled out whatever the system (see Klass and Others, cited above, § 59), the Court considers that a system such as that of Russia, which allows the secret services and the police to intercept communications directly to each citizen without requiring them to show an authorization to intercept the communications service provider, or someone else, is particularly prone to abuse. The need for safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse appears as particularly large.
There are little law in Europe mass surveillance which will pass this filter. In theory, the field is now open to all European citizens living under mass surveillance plans to continue their governments for breach of privacy.
Before a lot of people do that, however, it is also interesting to note that Zakharov wasn 't awarded damages for the violation, only court costs and a verdict in his favor. It is doubtful Russia will change anything as a result. However, there was disagreement on the question of damages, a court found legally sufficient to not award the requested 9,000 euros in damages to the in abstractia violation.
Your private life is your own responsibility, and apparently, something good can come to demand back too.
0 Komentar