The Right to Privacy Deconstructed: International Law in an Age of Virtual Surveillance

• Thesis title in Czech: Analýza práva na ochranu soukromí: Mezinárodní právo v době virtuálního sledování
• Thesis title in English: The Right to Privacy Deconstructed: International Law in an Age of Virtual Surveillance
• Key words: Cyberspace, digital-age, virtual, surveillance, privacy, human rights, international law
• English key words: Cyberspace, digital-age, virtual, surveillance, privacy, human rights, international law
• Academic year of topic announcement: 2015/2016
• Thesis type: diploma thesis
• Thesis language: angličtina
• Department: Department of International Relations (23-KMV)
• Supervisor: JUDr. Milan Lipovský, Ph.D.
• Author: hidden - assigned by the advisor
• Date of registration: 29.06.2016
• Date of assignment: 29.06.2016
• Date and time of defence: 11.09.2017 08:00
• Venue of defence: Jinonice - U Kříže 8, J3093, Jinonice - místn. č. 3093
• Date of electronic submission: 31.07.2017
• Date of proceeded defence: 11.09.2017
• Opponents: JUDr. Mgr. Miroslav Pulgret, Ph.D.

References

Bibliography,
Australian Bureau of Statistics. “Statistical Language: What is Metadata”. 3 July, 2013. Web. <
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+- +what+is+metadata>
Berman, Jerry. “Privacy in the Digital Age: Work in Progress”. Nova Law Review. Vol. 23. Pp. 554. 1998. Web.
Brandeis, Louis D. “The Right to Privacy” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 4, Issue 5 , Pp. 193-220. 1890.
Bundesnachrichtendienst. G10 Commission. http://www.bnd.bund.de/EN/Scope_of_Work/Supervision_and_Control/G10_Commission/G10_ Commission_node.html
Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz. “Parliamentary Control” Par. 9.
Chander, Anupam. “United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the
Digital Age”. International Legal Materials, Vol. 53, Issue 4 (2014), Pp. 727
CJEU. Google Spain and Google v. AEPD. Case, C-131/12. Par. 19, 22. 13 May, 2014.
Cole, David and Federico Fabbrini. “Bridging the Transatlantic Divide? The United States, The European Union, and the Protection of Privacy Across Borders.” Oxford University Press. ICON, Vol. 14. No. 1. Pp. 221.
Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5.
67
Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Automatic Processing of Individual Data, Art. 2. 28 January 1981, ETS 108.
Deeks, Ashley. “An International Legal Framework for Surveillance.” Virginia Journal of International Law. Vol. 55. Pp. 400. 2015. Web.
DeVries, Will Thomas. “Protecting Privacy in the Digital Age.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 1. Pp. 285, 286. 2003.
ECtHR. Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, 18 December, 2012. Recommendation III. ECtHR. Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom. no. 55721/07. Par. 74. 7 July, 2011.
ECtHR. Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria. No. 62540/00. Sec. 6. 28 June, 2007.
ECtHR. Barbulescu v. Romania. no. 61496/08, Dissenting Opinion, Justice Albuquerque. Par. 5. 8 April, 2014.
ECtHR. Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others. no. 52207/99. Par. 67. 20 October, 1999. ECtHR. Issa and Others v. Turkey. No. 31821/96. Par. 129. 16 November, 2014.
ECtHR. Kalda v. Estonia. no. 17429/10. 19 January, 2016.
ECtHR. Kennedy v. United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May, 2010 Par. 118.
ECtHR. Klass and Others v. Germany. no. 5029/71. Par. 42. 6 September, 1978.
ECtHR. K.U. v. Finland. no. 2872/02, B. “The Court’s Assessment”, 2 December, 2008 Par. 42.
68
ECtHR. Kvasnica v. Slovakia no. 72094/01 Par. 80. 9 June, 2009.
ECtHR. Liberty and Others v. The United Kingdom. no. 58243/00 Par. 59. 1 July, 2008. ECtHR. Roman Zakharov v. Russia. no. 47143/06. Section 154. 4 December, 2015. ECtHR. Soering v. United Kingdom. no. 14038/88. Par. 86. 7 July, 1989.
ECtHR. Szabo and Vissy v. Hungary. no. 37138/14. Par. 68. 12 January, 2016.
ECtHR. Weber and Saravia v. Germany. no. 54934/00. Par. 101. 10 January, 2000. Encyclopedia Britannica. Extraterritoriality. International Law. Access 22 July, 2017.
European Union, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 24 October 1995.
European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012, 2012/C 326/02.
European Union. “On the lawful Interception of Telecommunications” Council Resolution 96/C 329/01. 17 January, 1995.
European Union. Directive 2002/58/EC, Par. 5 31 July, 2002. European Union. Regulation 2016/679 Par. 9. 27 April, 2016. Government of Canada. “Canada’s Cybersecurity Strategy. Pp.2 2010.
69
Human Rights Council. 28th Session. Sec.1. “Summary of the Human Rights Council Panel Discussion on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”. 19 December, 2014.
Human Rights Council. A/HRC/17/27. Special Rapporteur. 16 May, 2011. Human Rights Council. A/HRC/RES/28/16. 1 April, 2015.
HRC. A/HRC/RES/28/16, General Comment No. 16. 4 January, 2015.
HRC. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 General Comment No. 27, 1 November, 1999. HRC. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 General Comment No. 31. Par. 6.
Human Rights Committee. CCPR /C/USA/CO/4, Par. 22.
HRC. Third Periodic Reports of States Parties, 2003, U.S.A. Sec. 486.
HRC. U.S. 4th Periodic Report, 2004.
Human Rights Council. “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: Report of the OHCHR”. 3 June, 2014.
International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” General List No. 131 Par.107-111. 9 July, 2004.
Kurt Young, Jr. “Privacy Law in the Digital Age: Establishing Privacy Rights in Search Engine Logs”. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal. Vol. 14, No. 1. Pp. 157.
Milanovic, Marko. “Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age” Harvard International Law Jounral. Vol. 56, No. 1. Pp.86. 2015.
70
Milanovic, Marko. Blog of the European Journal of International Law. “Comparing the ICCPR and the ECHR”. Par. 6. 26 November, 2013.
OHCHR. “Your Human Rights: The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”. Par. 2. Access: 2 July, 2017.
OHCHR. “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy”. Access: 14 July, 2017. <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Privacy/SR/Pages/SRPrivacyIndex.aspx>
OHCHR. Human Rights Committee. Access: 4 July, 2017 <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx>
Roagna, Ivana. “Protecting the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights” Council of Europe Human Rights Handbooks. Pp. 44. Strasbourg, 2012. Web.
Russian Federation. OSAA Section 8(2). Russia. 12 August, 1995.
Savoiu, Alina. “The Right to Privacy”. Annals of the “Constantin Brancusi" University of Targu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1. Pp. 89. 2013.
United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32. 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982.
UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December
1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 999, Articles 2, 17, 26, p. 171.
UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3
71
UN General Assembly. “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”. A/RES/Res/68/167. Par. 2, 11. 21 January, 2014.
UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III)

Preliminary scope of work

In order to understand the process to which the right to privacy operates under current international and regional legal frameworks, we ask ourselves the question if “the digital age” merits an interpretation of privacy unique to this phenomenon of cyberspace. If indeed the right to privacy can be interpreted in this way, we ask whether or not there is a deficit to legal protections to the. This “right to privacy in the digital age” will be taken in context of international law, conventions, principles, and norms in addition to being explored in case-law from the European Court of Human Rights to draw an understanding of the right to privacy in the digital age- if any such right does indeed exist. This thesis essentially, as the title implies, “deconstructs” what puts together the right to privacy and examines what parts of the law that was intended to fortify privacy in the first place, has shortcomings to its defense. I am arguing that there indeed are normative deficits to the right to privacy. In examining key examples of case-law from primarily the European Court of Human Rights, it will be seen if threading apart the important backgrounds of international legal and normative frameworks addresses the function of privacy in the digital age. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) operates separately to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); however, the core of the analysis assesses whether or not such a relationship can be drawn between them and develops an argument of where privacy stands in the “digital age” under this European context.

Preliminary scope of work in English

In order to understand the process to which the right to privacy operates under current international and regional legal frameworks, we ask ourselves the question if “the digital age” merits an interpretation of privacy unique to this phenomenon of cyberspace. If indeed the right to privacy can be interpreted in this way, we ask whether or not there is a deficit to legal protections to the. This “right to privacy in the digital age” will be taken in context of international law, conventions, principles, and norms in addition to being explored in case-law from the European Court of Human Rights to draw an understanding of the right to privacy in the digital age- if any such right does indeed exist. This thesis essentially, as the title implies, “deconstructs” what puts together the right to privacy and examines what parts of the law that was intended to fortify privacy in the first place, has shortcomings to its defense. I am arguing that there indeed are normative deficits to the right to privacy. In examining key examples of case-law from primarily the European Court of Human Rights, it will be seen if threading apart the important backgrounds of international legal and normative frameworks addresses the function of privacy in the digital age. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) operates separately to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); however, the core of the analysis assesses whether or not such a relationship can be drawn between them and develops an argument of where privacy stands in the “digital age” under this European context.