- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
The United Nations office on Drugs and Crime released a report titled: “The use of the Internet for terrorist purposes.” Part of this 148 page report is to document how terrorists utilize the internet to further their goals. However, a majority of the report relates to how law enforcement agencies can utilize the internet to track and capture terrorists, to gather information on terror plots, to investigate terrorist attacks after they occur, and effective evidence collection to support terror crime prosecutions.
While law enforcement agencies may utilize the internet to do all of these things one big problem stands in their way: privacy rights. Given the scope of this 148 page report, you would think that a significant portion would be devoted to legal analysis about privacy concerns and human rights concerns (such as freedom of expression, assembly, speech, and religion). You’d be wrong. These subjects get almost two full pages. (See pages 13-14) To be fair, the report states: “While a comprehensive analysis of human rights issues is beyond the scope of the present publication, it is important to highlight key areas for consideration.”
The report then goes on to give some examples, such as freedom of expression as being a limited right, (“not an absolute right”) and that it may be restricted when the freedom is used to “incite discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The report then notes that a difficulty arises about where “the line of acceptability lies” because each nation varies given its cultural and legal histories. Before concluding, a brief mention of due process is given, advocating that this right must be maintained.
The report concludes that the lack of an international agreement about ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) data retention creates problems for law enforcement agencies. The United States, and most other nations, have not enacted a mandatory data retention law, although Europe has. But the United States Department of Justice has been lobbying Congress to require ISPs to track their customers. This bill, HR 1981, named “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011″, was passed out of the House Judiciary at the end of 2011 but has not gone to a floor vote. It would require ISPs to track and retain names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporary IP addresses for all of their customers for one year.
Here in the United States, opposition rose to a related bill, Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA). It appears that the outrage created by SOPA, translated to shelving HR 1981 for the time being. Maybe the release of this UN Report will help revive it after this election season.
But it would seem to me, that before such a far-reaching data mining operation is globally conducted by governments, an in-depth analysis of the impact on privacy rights precede it. In addition, the increased regulatory cost a program like this would impose on ISPs (which would in turn increase prices) should be analyzed as well. An idea such as this has broad implications for the privacy of the world’s citizens and before it is taken seriously, maybe we should expand on that two page section.
– Nick Barry
Recent Blog Posts
- After Adobe, will more data breach cases survive a standing challenge?
- Can the FCC Create Net Neutrality?
- AT&T Levied with the Largest Privacy and Data Security Action the FCC has Ever Taken
- MLBPA Contemplates Legal Action Against the Cubs
- Monday Morning JETLawg
- Privacy Concerns Plague Education Apps
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution