Category Archives: European Court

European Court, Government, Legal, Society

ECHR ruling: Intelligence agencies can harvest data

PERSONAL DATA COLLECTION

Controversial powers that have been used by British spies to hoover up vast amounts of personal information to help foil major terrorist plots do not automatically breach human rights, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

It said UK intelligence agencies could scoop up data belonging to millions of citizens if there were proper safeguards and supervision.

Judges said harvesting and storing data on the websites people visited, who they called, texted or emailed, and their medical, tax and financial records was not “in and of itself” unlawful.

The ruling will be a boost to the Government, which says collecting “bulk data” and communications information has been crucial in preventing jihadist plots.

Ministers brought in the Investigatory Powers Act last year to tighten up the UK’s use of sweeping surveillance powers and introduced new oversights.

However, the ECHR found that the previous spying regime – exposed by Edward Snowden’s revelations about intelligence techniques – did violate human rights.

In 2013, Mr Snowden revealed that GCHQ, the UK’s eavesdropping agency, had been secretly collecting communications sent over the internet on an industrial scale.

The ECHR judgment said the system did not have any proper safeguards because it led to completely “untargeted” collection of information.

It ruled this had violated Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights – safeguarding privacy and confidential journalistic material.

The court’s ruling related to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which was replaced by the new Act at the start of 2017.

The court acknowledged that this act makes significant changes to the interception and communications data regimes, though critics call it a “turbocharged snoopers’ charter”.

The British Government has said it would give “careful consideration” to the ruling.

Standard
European Court, Google, Government, Legal, Society

Google deletes 1m links in ‘right to be forgotten’

GOOGLE & SOCIAL SEARCH ENGINES

GOOGLE has been asked to remove 2.4million web links under the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’.

The web giant has deleted 900,665 links from its search results since the European ruling came into force three years ago – including to news websites and government documents.

This comes amidst Google facing its first ‘right to be forgotten’ legal battle in the English courts against a businessman it accused of attempting “to rewrite history” by using the rule to try and hide articles about his criminal past.

The European Court of Justice ruled in May 2014 that Google must remove links to websites that include content that is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”. Removing a link from search engine results makes it very difficult to find online.

Requests have included demands from killers, terrorists, fraudsters and internet trolls who want to hide their criminal pasts.

The court case will be closely watched by convicted criminals and others who wish to hide their past histories.

It involves a businessman – who cannot be named for legal reasons – who was imprisoned for “conspiracy to account falsely” in the 1990s.

 

Standard
Britain, Business, European Court, Government, Legal, Politics

The practice of employers spying on staff?

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Employers need to take a ‘proportionate approach’ to monitoring their staff.

Last year, significant publicity was given to a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision whereby the rejection of a claim was widely described as a charter for employers to snoop on their employees at work.

Following an appeal, however, a claim by Mr Barbulescu that his right to privacy at work had been violated has been upheld.

The case concerned a Romanian engineer whose employer asked him to set up a Yahoo messenger account. The employer laid down very strict rules against any personal use.

The company monitored Mr Barbulescu’s account and accused him of using it for personal reasons. The defendant disputed this but was then presented with evidence that he made extensive use of it to discuss aspects of his sex life and health with two of his contacts, namely his fiancée and brother. Mr Barbulescu was subsequently dismissed and he brought claims against his employer.

The Grand Chamber of the Court has now decided that Mr Barbulescu’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention was breached. The key part of the decision was that an employee’s private life at work cannot be reduced to “zero”.

The national courts had not taken account of relevant issues including whether Mr Barbulescu had received prior notice of monitoring or considered its nature and extent. Nor had they determined legitimate reasons justifying the monitoring or considered less intrusive measures. They had accordingly failed to strike the right balance between the employer’s rights to impose discipline and the employee’s right to privacy.

The case highlights the degree of necessity that employers should take when monitoring employees. Whilst that should amount to a proportionate approach, the decision of the Grand Chamber will have limited impact in the UK. This is because legislation and guidance already sets out the parameters of legitimate monitoring by employers.

But there is an overlap. UK workers may be becoming concerned about domestic developments. The EU withdrawal bill, while purporting to preserve all workers’ rights enjoyed by virtue of EU law, controversially excludes the Charter of Fundamental Rights which enshrines in EU law both respect for private and family life and protection of personal data.

While the British Government appear to have sidelined its plans to withdraw the UK from the Convention on Human Rights and from the jurisdiction of the Court which presided in the Barbulescu case, there are indications that these important issues may be revisited after we leave the EU.

Although existing safeguards will continue to apply and be strengthened through implementation of the European General Data Protection Regulation next year, these developments mean, despite UK parliamentary assurances, workers’ rights in the UK look like they are about to be subject (once again) to significant uncertainty.

 

Standard