The personal data privacy is well-developed in European Union (EU). The Data Protection Directive in the European Commission acts as a national law which requires the data controller (an individual or group who control and responsible for the keeping and use of personal information) to have strict data management practices. However, the EU implemented varies of policies in order to have internet surveillance. These policies are claimed to combat rising terrorism in EU. But it also ignited intense discussion on whether the surveillance is a violation of human rights.
Protection of Privacy
Under The Data Protection Directive, citizens enjoy the following rights:
To be informed that their personal data is being processed in a clear and understandable language;
The right, in some cases, to object to the processing on legitimate grounds;
The right not to be subjected to an automated decision intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a person;
The right to receive compensation from the data controller for any damage.
In 2014, the European Court of Justice overturned a European Union directive which allowed telephone and email providers to store citizens’ data in order to prevent serious crime. The court also set limits on telecommunication data retention and reaffirmed the outstanding place privacy holds in Europe. Therefore, any intrusion into citizens’ privacy should be restricted to the minimum level.
“The directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data,”
The court wrote.
After Raising Terrorism
Thus, we can see that the personal information is well-protected in the EU. There are lots of laws to guarantee the privacy. However, there are increasing terrorist attacks in different European countries in recent years and causing a high casualty. For example, the shooting attack on Charlie Hebdo office in Paris caused the death of 17 people.
In the Charlie Hebdo attack, a clear failure on intelligent surveillance was shown. French intelligence department conducted surveillance on one or both of the Kouachi brothers who were the suspects in the attack. However, after Saïd Kouachi returned from Yemen, the department reduced the surveillance on him. Although the failure of surveillance on the suspect is not the only reason lead to the attack, it was one of the major reason why French police could not prevent the attack.
Therefore, in order to combat raising terrorism in the EU, different counties launched laws to enable the government to monitor the internet activities of the citizens. In the EU, the agency for judicial cooperation suggested developing a common approach to lawfully monitor services like Skype and Viber, to help keep track of suspicious people arriving back home from the Middle East. Also, The Europol, Europe’s police intelligence agency, was given the power to monitor and analyse social media communication on the internet and becoming the Europe’s internet watchdog.
In France, a new surveillance law the allow the government intrudes into private lives of the suspect was adopted. The controversial law also enables government to monitor the lives of people who communicate and work with the suspects without the permission from judicial authorization.
In Germany, the telecommunications companies and Internet service providers need to retain data for up to 10 weeks under a new data retention law launched on 2015.
Austria also discussing a draft law that would allow a new security agency to collect and store communication data for up to six years. The Finnish government even considering updating the Constitution in order to cripple privacy protections. So that the intelligence services can conduct mass internet surveillance with smaller resistance and oversight.
Opposition from Human Right Organization
All these new surveillance policies ignited intense discussion. The government explained that all these policies are only focused on content that incites hatred and terror. On the other side, many human right organisations opposed the policies adopted by the EU. Jillian York forms the Electronic Frontier Foundation suggested that “Mass surveillance doesn’t only infringe on our privacy, but also our ability to speak freely.”
“The knowledge, or even the perception of surveillance, can prompt writers to think twice before touching upon a given issue,”
She also wrote.
Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, warned that plans of launching mass surveillance policies and requiring the telecommunication companies to store personal data was “highly problematic” and pose danger to the human right.
Leave a Reply