Jurisprudence Category Archives
соучастники
11 July 2014 | Internet, Jurisprudence, Politics, Privacy | 4 Comments
как известно, еще в апреле Европейский суд справедливости признал нарушающей права человека Директиву по сбору данных:
The Court takes the view that, by requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. Furthermore, the fact that data are retained and subsequently used without the subscriber or registered user being informed is likely to generate in the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance.
что ж, Великобритания, ингсоц во всей своей красе, не собирается отмалчиваться в ответ:
The government is set to announce plans to rush through emergency legislation that will force phone and internet companies[1] to keep records of users’ online activities as well as customers’ calls and text messages.
не мытьем, там катаньем (“thanks to the secret deal, we know it will be law by the end of next week”[2]), разумеется:
Prime Minister David Cameron has secured the backing of all three main parties for the highly unusual move [emphasis mine; love BBC slang].
He said urgent action was needed to protect the public from “criminals and terrorists” after the European Court of Justice struck down existing powers.
But civil liberties campaigners have warned it will invade people’s privacy.
какие там liberties, если даже подготовительные работы, очевидно, выходят за всякие рамки — вот, что говорит Том Уотсон, член Парламента от лейбористской партии:
There are hundreds of thousands of people out there very concerned about this particular policy issue. They’ve not seen this bill either, but it doesn’t really matter this year because there’s been a deal done between the three parties and it’ll be railroaded through. If you’re an MP you probably shouldn’t bother turning up to work next week because what you are thinking doesn’t really matter.
и он же дальше:
Regardless of where you stand on the decision of the European Court of Justice, can you honestly say that you want a key decision about how your personal data is stored to be made by a stitch up behind closed doors and clouded in secrecy?
None of your MPs have even read this legislation, let alone been able to scrutinise it.
The very fact that the Government is even considering this form of action, strongly suggests that they have an expectation that the few people on the Liberal Democrat and Labour front benchers who have seen this legislation, are willing to be complicit.
или Джим Киллок из Open Rights Group:
The government knows that since the ECJ ruling, there is no legal basis for making internet service providers retain our data, so it is using the threat of terrorism as an excuse for getting this law passed.
The government has had since April to address the ECJ ruling but it is only now that organisations such as ORG are threatening legal action that this has become an ’emergency’.
что, впрочем, не отменяет кардинальных проблем и с содержанием:
Subhajit Basu, an associate professor in information technology law at Leeds University: As I understand this, the proposed new legislation will cover all persons and all means of electronic communication. It extends the type of communication service provider. It is not subject to geographic restriction. It remains to be seen if a CSP would include Wi-Fi cafe or an unsecured router.
Because of this bill, law enforcement authorities can ask Google to decrypt the content (with a warrant – they were able to do it before in the same way), not just Google UK but ‘any’ company based outside the jurisdiction of UK.
кто-то слишком уж торопится построить свою Океанию, других слов у меня нет.
-
касается не только британских операторов, но и тех зарубежных, что действуют на территории Соединенного Королевства. ↩
-
надо помнить, что изначальный The Communications Data Bill был заблокирован в прошлом году как раз усилиями лейбористов и либерал-демократов — однако теперь, with “a tiny amendment to section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, presumably inserted to save the blushes of those Liberal Democrat MPs who stood on a manifesto to reduce state surveillance”, правительство заручилось поддержкой всех трех основных партий — что это, если не самый настоящий преступный сговор, целенаправленно продолжающий сотрудничество американских и английских спецслужб? ↩
назад, к истокам
10 July 2014 | Internet, Jurisprudence, Politics, Privacy | 3 Comments
каторжане совсем двинулись:
Australian federal and state police are ordering phone providers to hand over personal information about thousands of mobile phone users, whether they are targets of an investigation or not.
говоря иначе, известный анекдот скоро будет уже отнюдь не так смешон.
монополия на насилие
10 July 2014 | Crime, Economics, Internet, Jurisprudence | 1 Comment
тем временем, в случае с Silk Road мы наблюдаем очередное показное делопроизводство:
That earlier motion, filed in April, raised potentially trial-shifting questions: Can Ulbricht really be accused of running a drug-selling conspiracy when he merely ran a website that made the narcotics sales possible? And can he be charged with money laundering when bitcoin doesn’t necessarily meet the requisite definition of money?’
According to [Judge Katherine] Forrest’s latest ruling, yes and yes. She rejected every argument made in the defense’s motion, starting with the idea that Ulbricht had merely provided an innocent platform for hosting the Silk Road’s illicit e-commerce, just as eBay might occasionally host illegal content without its knowledge.
сам Ульбрихт, конечно, личность в достаточной мере одиозная, и некоторые вопросы разумеется нуждаются в ответах. но обвинять в создании платформы для торговли или в отмывании денег на основании до сих пор не формализованных инструментов — это, как минимум, весьма странно[1].
-
что, впрочем, не отменяет определенного здравого подхода в ее положениях:
Put simply, funds can be used to pay for things in the colloquial sense. Bitcoins can be either used directly to pay for certain things or can act as a medium of exchange and be converted into a currency which can pay for things. Indeed, the only value for Bitcoin lies in its ability to pay for things – it is digital and has no earthly form; it cannot be put on a shelf and looked at or collected in a nice display case. Its form is digital – bits and bytes that together constitute something of value. And they may be bought and sold using legal tender.
проблема, иными словами, в другом: в том, как власть жонглирует этими понятиями в зависимости от того, что на данный момент требуется — и здесь мы снова видим еще один пример таких манипуляций. ↩
those who cannot remember the past
25 June 2014 | Jurisprudence, Politics | No Comments
отличное эссе Уильяма Джозефа Бреннана младшего, члена Верховного суда США:
There is <...> a good deal to be embarrassed about, when one reflects on the shabby treatment civil liberties have received in the United States during times of war and perceived threats to national security. For as adamant as my country has been about civil liberties during peacetime, it has a long story of failing to preserve civil liberties when it perceived its national security threatened. This series of failures is particularly frustrating in that it appears to result not from informed and rational decisions that protecting civil liberties would expose expose the United States to unacceptable security risks, but rather from the episodic nature of our security crises. After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realized that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis came along.
именно так, благими страхами, у нас отбирают свободу[1].
-
как сказал когда-то Томас Генри Бингэм, член палаты лордов по рассмотрению апелляций
[A]djudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair. The rule of law would seem to require no less. The general arguments in favour of open hearings are familiar, summed up on this side of the Atlantic by the dictum that justice must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done and on the American side by the observation that “Democracies die behind closed doors.”
незваные гости
16 May 2014 | Jurisprudence, Politics | 3 Comments
Мустафа Джемилев в одном из интервью:
Москва отрицает, что меня больше не впустят в Крым, но в аэропорту Симферополя мне выдали бумагу: «Запрет на въезд на территорию России на пять лет». Меня это рассмешило: я двадцать шесть лет назад из вашего российского Магадана вернулся и больше к вам не собираюсь. Кто ж знал, что Крым станет Россией и его у меня отберут.
кто из нас хоть близко может понять чувства крымских татар? безысходность всей этой исторической петли на шее исконных жителей полуострова?
Родители много рассказывали о своем родном селе Ай-Серез. Там у каждой скалы было свое имя, а море плескалось чуть не у домов. Хотя на самом деле Ай-Серез расположен в семи километрах от моря.
и, с другой стороны, кто еще удивляется тому, как бережно относятся к гражданству в той же Латвии или Эстонии, например? как всеми силами пытаются обезопасить себя от — вот чудесное русское слово — понаехавших? well, wonder no more.
address is not a person
25 March 2014 | Copyright, Jurisprudence | No Comments
знаковое решение, между прочим:
An important ruling in Florida has made it more difficult for copyright holders to extract cash settlements from alleged BitTorrent pirates. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro dismissed a lawsuit filed by Malibu Media, arguing that the IP-address evidence can’t identify the person who actually downloaded the pirated file.
don’t want to secede? have no such choice
10 March 2014 | Jurisprudence, Politics | 1 Comment
in case you’ve missed it, here’s the ballot for the Crimean Referendum, which offers you the only two options available:
- Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation?
- Do you support the restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine? (1992 Crimean Constitution declares Crimea as an independent state).
you may also like some pictures from the ongoing campaign.
oh, and legality, you say? who cares.
ударить по святому
18 January 2014 | Jurisprudence, Politics | No Comments
или вот, получается[1], симметричный ответ:
This week, a bipartisan group of US senators introduced a new bill, S.1933 (the Global Human Rights Accountability Act), that would extend across the world the targeted visa and financial sanctions on human rights abusers established by the Magnitsky Act. That law, passed in 2012, bans Russian officials who engage in gross human rights violations from traveling to and keeping assets in the United States. The new bill would extend these sanctions beyond Russia to human rights abusers in every country.
а что, хорошая аргументция, в общем-то:
Visiting the United States and having access to our financial system, including US dollars, are privileges that should not be extended to those who violate basic human rights and the rule of law.
on fair trials
17 January 2014 | Jurisprudence, Politics | 1 Comment
говоря о свежих законах, принятых в Верховной раде, хочется напомнить[1], что Украина должным образом ратифицировала Европейскую конвенцию о защите прав человека и основных свобод в 1997 году. более того, статья 6 Конвенции прямым текстом говорит следующее:
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
чему в 1985 году в деле Колоцца против Италии было дано следующее [ENG, RUS] предельно ясное разъяснение:
When domestic law permits a trial to be held notwithstanding the absence of a person “charged with a criminal offence” who is in Mr. Colozza’s position, that person should, once he becomes aware of the proceedings, be able to obtain, from a court which has heard him, a fresh determination of the merits of the charge.
или иными словами — как минимум — право обвиняемого на новое рассмотрение дела. о чем, хочется верить, будущие тройки все же не забудут.
-
комментировать остальные большого смысла нет. ↩
not a game
26 December 2013 | Jurisprudence, Politics, Privacy, Security, Software | 1 Comment
The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording[1] — for several years.
как насчет законодательного регулирования подобных мер? как насчет необходимости получать ордер, например?
A search warrant would be required to get content such as files from a suspect’s computer, said Mark Eckenwiler, a senior counsel at Perkins Coie LLP who until December was the Justice Department’s primary authority on federal criminal surveillance law. Continuing surveillance would necessitate an even stricter standard, the kind used to grant wiretaps.
But if the software gathers only communications-routing “metadata”—like Internet protocol addresses or the “to” and “from” lines in emails—a court order under a lower standard might suffice if the program is delivered remotely, such as through an Internet link, he said. That is because nobody is physically touching the suspect’s property, he added.
звучит отвратительно:
“Technology is evolving and law enforcement is struggling to keep up,” said Brian L. Owsley, a retired federal magistrate judge from Texas who was not involved in either case. “It’s a cat-and-mouse game.”