Surveillance and Criminal Investigation: Blurring of Thresholds and Boundaries in the Criminal Justice System?
Surveillance is increasingly used as in investigative technique, both as a tool of judicial investigation to gather evidence as a tool in a pre-active setting, before the preparation of an offence, to gather information about risks, threats and dangerousness of personal behaviour and thinking. The net widening and function creep of investigative surveillance imply conceptual changes which are strongly related to the information society and to transformations in the criminal justice system under the security paradigm. Classic thresholds and procedural guarantees in the criminal justice system have become obsolete. The human rights dimension of these surveillance measures are mostly dealt with under the protection of privacy. However, given the potential intrusive impact of surveillance and the coercive character of some surveillance techniques, also in the pre-emptive setting, it is logical to build in guarantees against disproportionate infringements of privacy, human dignity and the presumption of innocence. The latter could then be related not to the commission of offences, but also to the definition of dangerousness.
KeywordsCriminal Justice Criminal Justice System Organize Crime Information Society Criminal Procedure
- Andenaes, Johannes. 1965–1966. General preventive effects of punishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114:949–983.Google Scholar
- Bell, Daniel. 1976. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Biersteker, Thomas J., and Sue E. Eckert, eds. 2007. Countering the financing of terrorism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Brakel, Rosamunde van, and Paul De Hert. 2011. Policing, surveillance and law in a pre-crime society: Understanding the consequences of technology based strategies. Journal of Police Studies 20:163–192.Google Scholar
- Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2005. Intelligence-led policing: The new intelligence architecture, VII. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/210681.pdf.
- Casey, E. 2011. Digital evidence and computer crime. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Castells, Manuel. 2000. The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture. 2nd ed. vol. 1. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- De Busser, E. 2009. Data protection in EU-US criminal cooperation. Maklu.Google Scholar
- de Busser, E. 2010. EU data protection in transatlantic cooperation in criminal matters. Will the EU be serving its citizens an American meal? Utrecht Law Review 6 (1). (January 2010).Google Scholar
- de la Cuesta, J. L. 2007. Anti-terrorist penal legislation and the rule of law: Spanish experience, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal (RIDP).Google Scholar
- De Hert, Paul, ed. 2012. Privacy impact assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Fijnaut, C., J. Wouters, and F. Naert, eds. 2004. Legal instruments in the fight against international terrorism. A Transatlantic dialogue. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
- Frost, Natasha A. 2006. The punitive state: Crime, punishment and imprisonment across the United States. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
- Gutwirth, Serge. 2002. Privacy and the information age. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Increasing Resilience In Surveillance Societies (IRISS). 2013. Deliverable D1.1, surveillance, fighting crime and violence. http://irissproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IRISS_D1_MASTER_DOCUMENT_17Dec20121.pdf.
- Jakobs, Günther. 2004. Bürgerstrafrecht und Feindstrafrecht. HRRS 3:88–95.Google Scholar
- Lyon, David. 1994. The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Lyon, David. 2007. Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Ost, F., et M. van de Kerchove. 2002. De la pyramide au réseau? Pour une théorie dialectique du droit. Bruxelles: Publications des Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis.Google Scholar
- Pelser, C. 2008. Preparations to commit a crime. The Dutch approach to inchoate offences. Utrecht Law Review 4 (3).Google Scholar
- van Noorloos, M. 2011. Hate speech revisited. A comparative and historical perspective on hate speech law in the Netherlands and England & Wales. Intersentia.Google Scholar
- Vervaele, J. A. E. 2009. Special procedural measures and respect of human rights, general report for the International Association of Criminal Law (AIDP). Utrecht Law Review :66–109.Google Scholar