Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surveillance of Communications Data and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reloading Data Protection

  • 2029 Accesses

Abstract

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees respect for private life and correspondence, a guarantee that is increasingly challenged by developments in telecommunications technology. This chapter is a critique of the approach of the Strasbourg Court in its application of Article 8 and the surveillance of communications data by law enforcement authorities. First, greater scrutiny needs to be exercised so that Convention safeguards are applied strictly and consistently regardless of whether the interference concerns the surveillance of content, e.g., telephone tapping, or communications data, e.g., the location, frequency, participants of a communication. Secondly, the Court needs to consider the level of intrusiveness to an individual’s private life that the monitoring of communications data now poses in light of regulatory developments and the technological advances brought about by digitization and the Internet in its application of the necessity and proportionality requirements under Article 8(2). Otherwise, the Court’s approach to communications data will fall so far behind these changes that the standard of protection provided under the Convention risks becoming more illusory than real.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14, concurring judgment of Judge Pettiti, 38.

  2. 2.

    See Drzemczewski (1983); Gearty (1993); Keller and Stone-Sweet (2008).

  3. 3.

    Council Directive (2006, OJ 2006 L 105 p. 54) (hereafter, the “Data Retention Directive”). Article 1(1) of the Directive specifically refers to “operators of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks”. These include fixed-line and mobile telephone companies as well as Internet service providers. They will be collectively referred to hereafter as “telecommunications operators”.

  4. 4.

    See EU Commission Directorate General for Home Affairs.

  5. 5.

    Council Directive (2006, Art. 1 (1)).

  6. 6.

    Council Directive (2006, Recital 9).

  7. 7.

    Preliminary references concerning the Directive have been raised by the Constitutional Courts in Ireland and Austria. Questions concerning the role of Article 8 ECHR and the operation of the Directive have been raised in both of the preliminary rulings submitted to the CJEU. See Case C-293/12, Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 11 June 2012— Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General. For details on the preliminary ruling sought by the Austrian Constitutional Court, see the press release by Verfassungsgerichtshofes, an Austrian privacy NGO, http://www.vfgh.gv.at/cms/vfghsite/attachments/2/7/9/CH0003/CMS1355817745350/press_release_data_retention.pdf.

  8. 8.

    The review of the Directive is ongoing and follows an earlier assessment undertaken by the Commission of the legislation’s implementation in Member States. Overall, the Commission found that the evaluation “demonstrated that data retention is a valuable tool for criminal justice systems and for law enforcement in the European Union”. The Commission also found, however, that the Directive has thus far failed in its main objective as the “contribution” of the legislation to the harmonization of data retention across the EU has been “limited”: Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), COM (2011) 225 final Brussels (18.4.2011), 1. For further, see Ni Loideain (2012).

  9. 9.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, para. 42.

  10. 10.

    Kennedy v. United Kingdom (2010) ECHR 682, para. 153.

  11. 11.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14, concurring judgment of Judge Pettiti, 43.

  12. 12.

    On Article 8 generally, see White and Ovey (2010, chs. 14–16); Harris et al. (2009, Harris supra n. 12, chs. 8–9); Feldman (2002, p. 523–542).

  13. 13.

    The literature examining the area of covert surveillance and Article 8 is extensive. See, e.g., Harris et al. (2009, p. 400–404); Feldman (2002, p. 664–667). See also JUSTICE (2011, ch. 2).

  14. 14.

    Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483; P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom (2001) ECHR 546; Copland v. United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 37.

  15. 15.

    Young (2004–2005, pp. 346, 372–373).

  16. 16.

    Council Directive (2006, Recitals 5–8).

  17. 17.

    See the statutory legislation in the United Kingdom, Ireland and references by the European Commission in its evaluation of the Data Retention Directive: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003 (S.I. No.3127 of 2003) (United Kingdom); the Communication (Retention of Data) Act 2010 (Ireland); Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), COM (2011) 225 final Brussels (18.4.2011), (hereafter, the “Evaluation of the Directive”), 11–12.

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., Maras (2012, p. 447); Brown (2011, p. 95); Brown and Korff (2009, p. 119, 124).

  19. 19.

    Liberty v. United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 1 concerned legislation allowing for the interception of all public telecommunications, including email between the United Kingdom and any individual or transmitter outside of the UK; Copland v. United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 37 concerned the surveillance of a state employee’s Internet usage and emails.

  20. 20.

    Starmer (1999, p. 129).

  21. 21.

    For an analysis of the application of Article 8(2) to covert surveillance generally, see White and Ovey (2010, supra n. 12, pp. 365–371); Harris (2009, supra n. 12, pp. 397–404); Feldman (2002, supra n. 12, pp. 665–667).

  22. 22.

    K.U. v. Finland (2009) 48 EHRR 1237, para. 42; Craxi v. Italy (No. 2) (2004) 38 EHRR 995.

  23. 23.

    Craxi v. Italy (No. 2) (2004) 38 EHRR 995, para. 73; Draksas v. Lithuania (App. 36662/04) (31 July 2012), para. 62.

  24. 24.

    Emmerson et al. (2007, pp. 281–284).

  25. 25.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, para. 41; Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14, para. 64; Lambert v. France (2000) 30 EHRR 346, para. 21; Amann v. Switzerland (2000) ECHR 87, para. 44; Draksas v. Lithuania (App. 36662/04), 31 July 2012, para. 52.

  26. 26.

    Niemietz v. Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97, para. 29; Halford v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 523, para. 44; Amann v. Switzerland (2000) ECHR 87, para. 44.

  27. 27.

    Kopp v. Switzerland (1999) 27 EHRR 91, para. 53.

  28. 28.

    Niemietz v. Germany (1993) 16 EHRR 97; Peck v. UK (2003) 36 EHRR 719.

  29. 29.

    S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581, para. 66.

  30. 30.

    Niemietz v. Germany (1993) 16 EHRR 97, para. 29; P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom (2001) ECHR 546, para. 56.

  31. 31.

    Moreham (2008, pp. 44, 53).

  32. 32.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, 29 (separate opinion of Judge Pinheiro Farinha who concurred with the Court’s judgment but on different grounds).

  33. 33.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 37, para. 41.

  34. 34.

    Harris (2009, supra n. 12, p. 381).

  35. 35.

    Gillespie (2009, pp. 552, 565).

  36. 36.

    Arai-Takahashi (2002, supra n. 61, p. 74).

  37. 37.

    McHarg (1999, pp. 671, 685), observes, the requirements of Article 8(2) “are clearly designed to give some priority to rights by raising the hurdles which states must overcome in claiming public interest defences.”

  38. 38.

    Khan v. United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1016, para. 26; P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom (2001) ECHR 546, para. 44; Copland v. United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 37, para. 46.

  39. 39.

    Khan v. United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1016, para. 26.

  40. 40.

    Copland v. United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 37, para. 45; Halford v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 523, para. 49.

  41. 41.

    Liberty v. United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 1; Huvig v. France (1990) 12 EHRR 547; Amann v. Switzerland (2000) ECHR 87; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483. The Court has accepted that common law, or case law, may also satisfy the legality test but only if it is sufficiently detailed, clear and precise.

  42. 42.

    Huvig v. France (1990) 12 EHRR 547, para. 34; Liberty v. United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 1, para. 62.

  43. 43.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483; Liberty v. United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 1.

  44. 44.

    Huvig v. France (1990) 12 EHRR 547, para. 32; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (2008) 46 EHRR SE5, para. 93.

  45. 45.

    P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom (2001) ECHR 546, para. 46.

  46. 46.

    Leander v. Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433, para. 51; Liberty v. United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 1, para. 62.

  47. 47.

    Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483, para. 60.

  48. 48.

    In Halford v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 523, there was no domestic law in place regulating surveillance by the State of internal communications systems operated by public authorities. Interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations in her place of work, police headquarters in this case, had no basis therefore in domestic law and could not be in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8(2) (see para. 51); see also Copland v. United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 37.

  49. 49.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483, para. 60.

  50. 50.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, paras. 55–56; Rotaru v. Romania (2000) ECHR 192, para.59; Kennedy v. United Kingdom (2010) ECHR 682, para. 167.

  51. 51.

    (1978) 2 EHRR 214, para. 56.

  52. 52.

    McHarg (1999, supra n. 37).

  53. 53.

    Beatson et al. (2008, p. 162).

  54. 54.

    K.U. v. Finland (2009) 48 EHRR 1237, para. 49; Copland v. United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 37, para. 48.

  55. 55.

    Leander v. Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433, para. 58.

  56. 56.

    Silver v. United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR 347, para. 97.

  57. 57.

    (1983) 5 EHRR 347, para. 97.

  58. 58.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, paras. 42, 48.

  59. 59.

    (1978) 2 EHRR 214, para. 50; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (2008) 46 EHRR SE5, para. 106; Kennedy v. United Kingdom (2010) ECHR 682, para. 153.

  60. 60.

    Silver v. United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR 347, para. 97.

  61. 61.

    See generally Arai-Takahashi (2002); Yourow (1996).

  62. 62.

    White and Ovey (2010, supra n. 12, p. 325).

  63. 63.

    Lambert v. France (2000) 30 EHRR 346 , para. 30.

  64. 64.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, paras. 48–49; Leander v. Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433, para. 59; Segerstedt-Wiberg v. Sweden (2007) 44 EHRR 14, para. 104; Feldman (2002, supra n. 12, p. 666).

  65. 65.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, para. 42; Silver v. United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR 347, para. 97.

  66. 66.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214; Rotaru v. Romania (2000) ECHR 192; Draksas v. Lithuania (App.36662/04) (31 July 2012).

  67. 67.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, para. 42.

  68. 68.

    Segerstedt-Wiberg v. Sweden (2007) 44 EHRR 14, para. 88.

  69. 69.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, paras. 50.

  70. 70.

    Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (2008) 46 EHRR SE5; Kennedy v. United Kingdom (2010) ECHR 682.

  71. 71.

    Z v. Finland (1997) 25 EHRR 371; S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581. See generally, White and Ovey (2010, supra n. 12, pp. 374–377); Feldman (2002, supra n. 12, pp. 308–316).

  72. 72.

    Feldman (2002, supra n. 12, pp. 306–308).

  73. 73.

    Tyrer v. United Kingdom (1979–1980) 2 EHRR 1, para. 31; Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy (App.25579/05) (16 December 2010) (Grand Chamber), para. 175.

  74. 74.

    Rotaru v. Romania (2000) ECHR 192, para. 43.

  75. 75.

    S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581, para. 50.

  76. 76.

    European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2010, p. 6).

  77. 77.

    Amann v. Switzerland (2000) ECHR 87; Copland v. United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 37.

  78. 78.

    Rotaru v. Romania (2000) ECHR 192, paras. 43–44.

  79. 79.

    (2007) 44 EHRR 2, para. 107.

  80. 80.

    (2007) 44 EHRR 2, para. 72.

  81. 81.

    S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581, para. 120.

  82. 82.

    Emmerson (2007,supra n. 24, p. 301).

  83. 83.

    S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581.

  84. 84.

    Feldman (2002, supra n. 12, p. 313).

  85. 85.

    Amann v. Switzerland (2000) ECHR 87; Rotaru v. Romania (2000) ECHR 192; Segerstedt-Wiberg v. Sweden (2007) 44 EHRR 2.

  86. 86.

    Amann v. Switzerland (2000) ECHR 87, para. 69; S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581, para. 67.

  87. 87.

    Van der Velden v. Netherlands (App.29514/05) (7 December 2006); S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581.

  88. 88.

    Friedl v. Austria (1995) 21 EHRR 83, paras. 49–51; Peck v. UK (2003) 36 EHRR 719, para. 59; S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581, para. 67.

  89. 89.

    Z v. Finland (1998) 25 EHRR 371, para. 99; Peck v. UK (2003) 36 EHRR 719, para. 77.

  90. 90.

    Craxi v. Italy (2004) 38 EHRR 47, paras. 74–75; Draksas v. Lithuania (App.36662/04), 31 July 2012, paras. 60, 62.

  91. 91.

    Weber and Saravia v. Germany (2008) 46 EHRR SE5, para. 79.

  92. 92.

    S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581, para. 103.

  93. 93.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14.

  94. 94.

    See, e.g., Diffie and Landau (2010); Solove (2004); Agre and Rotenberg (1997).

  95. 95.

    Mayer-Schönberger (2010a).

  96. 96.

    Mayer-Schönberger (2010b, pp. 57–58).

  97. 97.

    Naughton (1999, p. 40).

  98. 98.

    For a clear outline of how this process works in practice, see Kerr (2005, pp. 211, 216).

  99. 99.

    Diffie and Landau (2010, supra n. 94, p. 314).

  100. 100.

    Mayer-Schönberger (2010b, supra n. 96, pp. 11–12).

  101. 101.

    Id.

  102. 102.

    Marsden (2011, p. 6).

  103. 103.

    See Internet World Statistics: www.internetworldstats.com.

  104. 104.

    Mayer-Schönberger (2010b, supra n. 96, p. 3).

  105. 105.

    European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) (2011, p. 5).

  106. 106.

    Id(emphasis added). For further analysis on the value of communications data from SNS for state surveillance, see Omand and Miller (2012).

  107. 107.

    For further, see Marsden (2011, supra n. 104, ch. 3); Howard (2008, p. 14).

  108. 108.

    See “Key facts” on the Facebook website: http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22.

  109. 109.

    Internet World Statistics: www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm.

  110. 110.

    Howard (2008, supra n. 109, p. 16).

  111. 111.

    Data Retention Directive, Recital 13; Article 1(2); Article 5(2).

  112. 112.

    An example of the lesser standard of protection afforded to access to communications data is the fact that such information, unlike access to content data, can be obtained without a warrant. See, e.g., the relevant statutory provisions governing this area in the UK: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Pt. 1.

  113. 113.

    Escudero-Pascual and Hosein (2004, pp. 77–78).

  114. 114.

    Diffie and Landau (2010, supra n. 94, p. 331).

  115. 115.

    Escudero-Pascual and Hosein (2004, supra n. 117, p. 82).

  116. 116.

    JUSTICE (2011, supra n. 12, p. 18, para. 20); see also Young (2004–2005, supra n. 15, p. 378).

  117. 117.

    Diffie and Landau (2010, supra n. 94, p. 314); Breyer (2005, supra n. 139, pp. 370–371).

  118. 118.

    Young (2004–2005, supra n. 15, pp. 379–380), using a sample from a presentation by A. Pascual, “Access to ‘Traffic’ Data: When Reality is Far More Complicated Than a Legal Definition” (11 October 2002).

  119. 119.

    Id.

  120. 120.

    Lessig (1999, p. 151).

  121. 121.

    Id.

  122. 122.

    Gillespie (2009, pp. 560–561).

  123. 123.

    Bray (2013, pp. 68–69).

  124. 124.

    See the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (2013, pp. 2–3).

  125. 125.

    Spitz (2012).

  126. 126.

    See, e.g., McPhie (2005, p. 33).

  127. 127.

    Michael (1994, p. 10).

  128. 128.

    Solove (2008, p. 13).

  129. 129.

    Clarke (1988, pp. 498, 499) defined as “dataveillance” as “the systematic use of personal data systems in the investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of one or more persons”.

  130. 130.

    Solove’s taxonomy of privacy focuses on activities that can and do cause privacy problems; Solove (2004, supra n. 130, ch. 5).

  131. 131.

    Solove (2008, supra n. 130, p. 118).

  132. 132.

    See Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, 5/2009 Opinion on online social networking, (12.06.2009).

  133. 133.

    FTC Report (2013), n. 126.

  134. 134.

    Lessig (1999, n. 122, pp. 153–154).

  135. 135.

    Slobogin (2011, p. 2).

  136. 136.

    Evaluation of the Directive supra n. 3, p. 35.

  137. 137.

    Breyer (2005, pp. 365, 365).

  138. 138.

    See Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483; P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom (2001) ECHR 546.

  139. 139.

    See the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2012, p. 100): “[I]t is clear from Malone that the Court considers the acquisition of communications data to be a less serious infringement of privacy rights than the interception of communications”.

  140. 140.

    Bygrave (1998, p. 247, 263) highlights the contrasting concurring opinion of Judge Pettiti who was unequivocal in his finding that the use of metering for any aim other than “its sole accounting purpose” constitutes an interference with private life; see Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14, 43.

  141. 141.

    (1985) 7 EHRR 14, para. 84.

  142. 142.

    (1985) 7 EHRR 14, paras. 17, 56.

  143. 143.

    Judge Pettiti’s foresight of the impact of technological developments in the area of State surveillance of communications is highlighted by Murphy and O’Cuinn (2010, pp. 601, 619).

  144. 144.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14, 43.

  145. 145.

    (1985) 7 EHRR 14, paras. 83–84, 89.

  146. 146.

    Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483; P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom (2001) ECHR 546.

  147. 147.

    (1999) 28 EHRR 483.

  148. 148.

    As held by the Court, (1999) 28 EHRR 483, para. 47: “The tapping of Mr Valenzuela Contreras’s telephone line … constitutes an ‘interference by a public authority’ within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 in the applicant’s exercise of his right to respect for his private life and correspondence. Indeed, that point was not disputed. Nor is it decisive in that regard that, as the Government intimated, only a ‘metering’ system was used (see the Malone judgment cited above, p. 38, para. § 87).” Bygrave’s concern regarding the ambiguity of the Court’s stance on metering and Article 8(1) in Malone is understandable given that his observation was made prior to the ruling of Valenzuela Contreras. The argument made recently in 2012 by the UK Secretary of State carries much less weight in light of the Court’s subsequent case law and the absence of any supporting authority for this interpretation of Malone.

  149. 149.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 858, para 41.

  150. 150.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 858, para 15.

  151. 151.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 858, para 11.

  152. 152.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 858, para 13.

  153. 153.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 858, para 44.

  154. 154.

    Beatson et al. (2008, supra n. 53, p. 146).

  155. 155.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483.

  156. 156.

    Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483, para. 61.

  157. 157.

    (1985) 7 EHRR 14, paras. 87–88.

  158. 158.

    The surveillance undertaken by the police in this case involved the metering of several phones. The metered information consisted of lists and times of numbers dialled and received in order to establish whether the applicant was harassing his former fiancée.

  159. 159.

    (1999) 28 EHRR 483, paras. 60–61.

  160. 160.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 37, para. 44.

  161. 161.

    Leander v. Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433, para. 48; Kopp v. Switzerland (1999) 27 EHRR 91, para. 58; Amann v. Switzerland (2000) ECHR 87, para. 69.

  162. 162.

    (2001) ECHR 546.

  163. 163.

    (2001) ECHR 546, para. 47.

  164. 164.

    In contrast, see the rulings of Khan v. United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1016 and Liberty v. United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 1.

  165. 165.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14, para. 79.

  166. 166.

    K.U. v. Finland (2009) 48 EHRR 1237, para. 22.

  167. 167.

    (2009) 48 EHRR 1237, para. 49.

  168. 168.

    (2007) 45 EHRR 37.

  169. 169.

    S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) ECHR 1581, paras. 71–72; Van der Velden v. Netherlands (App.29514/05) (7 December 2006).

  170. 170.

    Brown (2011, supra n. 18, p. 102).

  171. 171.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14.

  172. 172.

    (1985) 7 EHRR 14; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483; P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom (2001) ECHR 546.

  173. 173.

    JUSTICE (2011, supra n. 12, p. 71).

References

  • Agre, Phillip, and Marc Rotenberg, eds. 1997. Technology and privacy: The new landscape. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2009. 5/2009 Opinion on online social networking. (12.06.2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. 2002. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatson, Jack, Stephen Grosz, Tom Hickman, Rabinder Singh, and Stephanie Palmer. 2008. Human rights: Judicial protection in the United Kingdom. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, O. 2013. The app effect: How apps are changing the legal landscape. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 66:68–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, Patrick. 2005. Telecommunications data retention and human rights: The compatibility of blanket data retention with the ECHR. European Law Journal 11 (3): 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Ian. 2011. Communications data retention in an evolving internet. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 19 (2): 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Ian, and Douwe Korff. 2009. Terrorism and the proportionality of internet surveillance. European Journal of Criminology 6 (2): 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave, Lee A. 1998. Data protection pursuant to the right to privacy in human rights treaties. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 6:247–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Roger A. 1988. Information and technology and dataveillance. Communications of the ACM 31 (5): 498–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council Directive (EC) No 24/2006. (OJ 2006 L 105 p. 54).

    Google Scholar 

  • Diffie, Whitfield, and Susan Landau. 2010. Privacy on the line: The politics of wiretapping legislation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drzemczewski, Andrew. 1983. European human rights convention in domestic law: A comparative study. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerson, Ben, Andrew Ashworth, and Alison MacDonald. 2007. Human rights and criminal justice. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escudero-Pascual, Alberto, and Gus Hosein. 2004. Questioning lawful access to traffic data. Communications of the ACM 47 (3): 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). 2011. Risks and benefits of emerging life-logging applications: Final Report. Heraklion: ENISA.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2010. Data Protection in the European Union: The Role of National Data Protection Authorities. Belgium: FRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission Directorate General for Home Affairs website:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/police-cooperation/data-retention/review-of-data-retention-directive/index_en.htm.

  • Feldman, David. 2002. Civil liberties and human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gearty, Conor. 1993. The European court of human rights and the protection of civil liberties: An overview. Cambridge Law Journal 52:89–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, Alisdair A. 2009. Regulation of internet surveillance. European Human Rights Law Review 4:552–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, David J., Michael O’Boyle, Edward P. Bates, and Carla M. Buckley. 2009. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, Bill. 2008. Analyzing online social networks. Communications of the ACM 51 (11): 14–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JUSTICE. 2011. Freedom from suspicion: Surveillance reform for a digital age. London: JUSTICE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Helen, and Alec Stone-Sweet. 2008. A Europe of rights: The impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, Orin. 2005. A thinly veiled request for congressional action on e-mail privacy: United States v. Councilman. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 19 (1): 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. Code and other law of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maras, Marie-Helen. 2012. The economic costs and consequences of mass communications data retention: is the data retention directive a proportionate measure? European Journal of Law and Economics 33 (2): 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, C.T. 2011. Internet co-Regulation: European law, regulatory governance and legitimacy in cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor. 2010a. Delete! Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. http://podcasts.ox.ac.United Kingdom/delete-audio. Accessed 10 May 2010.

  • Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor. 2010b. Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg, Aileen. 1999. Reconciling human rights and the public interest: Conceptual problems and doctrinal uncertainty in the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights. Modern Law Review 62 (5): 671–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhie, David. 2005. Almost private: Pen registers, packet sniffers, and privacy at the margin. Stanford Technology Law Review 1:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, James. 1994. Privacy and human rights: An international and comparative study, with special reference to developments in information technology. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreham, Nicole A. 2008. The right to respect for private life in the European convention on human rights: A re-examination. European Human Rights Law Review 1:44–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Therese, and Gearoid O’Cuinn. 2010. Works in progress: New technologies and the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 10 (4): 601–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naughton, John. 1999. A brief history of the future: The origins of the Internet. London: Phoenix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni Loideain, Nora. 2012. Assessing the evaluation of the EC Data Retention Directive. In Human rights and risks in the digital era: Globalization and the effects of information technologies, ed. Christina M. Akrivopoulou and Nicolaos Garipidis, 67–79. Hershey: Information Science Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omand, David. 2012. Intelligence and security in the digital age. Conference Paper, University of Cambridge, 1 Mar 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omand, David, Jamie Bartlett, and Carl Miller. 2012. Intelligence: DEMOS Report. London: DEMOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. 2011. Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), COM(2011) 225 final Brussels. (18.4.2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretary of State for the Home Department. 2012. Draft Communications Data Bill, CM 8359. London: Home Office. (June 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. 2011. The Law Enforcement Surveillance Reporting Gap. Seminar Paper, Indiana University Bloomington—Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, 10 April 2011, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solove, Daniel J. 2004. The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solove, Daniel J. 2008. Understanding privacy. London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitz, Malte. 2012. Your phone company is watching you. TEDGlobal Conference Paper, Edinburgh. http://www.ted.com/talks/malte_spitz_your_phone_company_is_watching.html. Accessed June 2012.

  • Starmer, Keir. 1999. European Human Rights Law: The Human Rights Act and the ECHR. London: Legal Action Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tene, Omer. 2008. What Google Knows: Privacy and internet search engines. Utah Law Review 4:1433–1492.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Staff Report. 2013. Mobile privacy disclosures: Building trust through transparency. Washington D.C.: FTC. (Feb 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Robin C.A., and Claire, Ovey. 2010. The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Jason M. 2004–2005. Surfing while Muslim: Privacy, freedom of expression and the unintended consequences of cybercrime legislation. Yale Journal of Law and Technology 7 (2): 346–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yourow, Howard C. 1996. The margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the dynamics of European human rights jurisprudence. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Magdalene College, CB3 0AG, Cambridge, UK

    Nora Ni Loideain

Authors
  1. Nora Ni Loideain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nora Ni Loideain .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

    Serge Gutwirth

  2. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ronald Leenes

  3. Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Paul De Hert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Loideain, N. (2014). Surveillance of Communications Data and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P. (eds) Reloading Data Protection. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7540-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation