tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post370499535632455967..comments2024-03-19T12:09:41.188+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Stop das press! No more surreptitious state surveillanceVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54980624518249994832008-05-29T13:06:00.000+01:002008-05-29T13:06:00.000+01:00The above case was mentioned at a conference organ...The above case was mentioned at a conference organised by the Academy of European Law (ERA) in cooperation with the Office of the European Data Protection Supervisor on 26-27 May 2008 in Trier, Germany. Topic was "Data protection in the EU: How to strike the right balance between mobility, security and privacy".<BR/><BR/>An interesting newsitem or ERA's website sets out what was dicussed at the conference; it can be retrieved here: http://www.era.int/web/en/html/nodes_main/4_1649_459/4_2153_462/5_1625_7703.htmBirgit Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02822674465997696890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43573011947950005202008-02-27T18:05:00.000+00:002008-02-27T18:05:00.000+00:00It is amazing how quickly Guido reported this case...It is amazing how quickly Guido reported this case!<BR/><BR/>The BVerfG states for the first time that the general personality right under Art 2(1), 1(1) German Basic Law also encompasses the basic (human) right of confidentiality and integrity of information technology systems. <BR/><BR/>That does not mean however, that this basic (human) right cannot be balanced against other rights. The court makes it clear that such "online searches" or surveillances are legal in such cases where the is concrete danger for other rights of paramount importance ("überragend wichtige Rechtsgüter") like human lives or the existance of the state. In such cases, where other basic rights are colliding the "online search" must be sanctioned by a judge. <BR/><BR/>I can see why Guido is worried about the consequences of this broadening of the general personality right, but at the same I cannot see how the court could have decided any differently without fundamentally changing its view of how Art 2(1), 1(1) Basic Law should be interpreted. Articles 10 and 13 just did not cover this aspect of modern life. <BR/><BR/>The court must have been aware of the potential consequences of this new interpretation. I assume that if conflicts with the IP Enforcement Directive 2004/48 or the DRM provisions under copyright/WCT and the Information Society Directive ever came to be decided by the BVerfG things might pan out slighlty differently. <BR/><BR/>I am not at all sure that today's decision allows a definite predicition as to how such conflicts would be decided by the BverfG or whether this new aspect of the General personality right could then indeed be invoked.Birgit Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02822674465997696890noreply@blogger.com