Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 6 results.

Sparkling Lights in the Going Dark: journal article

Legal Safeguards for Law Enforcement’s Encryption Circumvention Measures

Thiago Moraes

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 6 (2020), Issue 1, Page 41 - 55

This article discusses legal safeguards that could be in place in the European jurisdictions when law enforcement authorities conducting investigations of criminal offenses implement circumvention measures to bypass encryption technologies designed to protect the right to privacy of users of electronic communication services and equipment. The analysis is structured in three parts: first, two encryption technologies used by communication applications and devices are explained: end-to-end encryption and full disk encryption. Second, two encryption circumvention measures are discussed: government hacking and unlock orders. This study discusses their effectiveness against those encryption techniques, as well as their degree of invasiveness and potential harm to individuals’ rights to privacy and concludes with a list of possible legal safeguards that could be considered when implementing them. These safeguards are defined and discussed, based on European case law and national legislations analysis. Keywords: encryption; right to privacy; surveillance; going dark

TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA: Some CJEU Guidance on the Use of Video Surveillance in Apartment Buildings under EU Data Protection Law journal article

Pieter Aertgeerts

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 6 (2020), Issue 2, Page 314 - 318

Case C-708/18 TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2019 Article 6(1)(c) and Article 7(f) of the Data Protection Directive, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not preclude national provisions which authorise the installation of a video surveillance system installed in the common parts of a residential building, for the purposes of pursuing legitimate interests of ensuring the safety and protection of individuals and property, without the consent of the data subjects, if the processing of personal data carried out by means of the video surveillance system at issue fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 7(f). Articles 7, 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Data Protection Directive) [1995] OJ L 281/31

Video Surveillance at Work – In Need of Regulation? (López Ribalda and Others App nos 1874/13 and 8567/13) journal article

Diana Dimitrova

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 6 (2020), Issue 1, Page 152 - 157

López Ribalda and Others v Spain, Applications numbers 1874/13 and 8567/13, Judgment of European Court of Human Rights of 17 October 2019 Employees not notified of covert video surveillance at work. Other safeguards applicable. Domestic courts struck a fair balance in examining the privacy rights of the employees and the legitimate interests of the emplyoer. No violation of Article 8 ECHR.

  • «
  • 1
  • »