[ANSOL-geral] Que mil NSA's florescam... Nem o Mao teria dito
melhor...
André Isidoro Fernandes Esteves
aife netvisao.pt
Terça-Feira, 27 de Outubro de 2015 - 15:31:40 WET
Que mil NSA's florescam... Nem o Mao teria dito melhor...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/opinion/europe-is-spying-on-you-mass-surveillance.html?_r=1
Europe Is Spying on You
By NILS MUIZNIEKSOCT. 27, 2015
STRASBOURG, France — When Edward Snowden disclosed details of America’s
huge surveillance program two years ago, many in Europe thought that the
response would be increased transparency and stronger oversight of
security services. European countries, however, are moving in the
opposite direction. Instead of more public scrutiny, we are getting more
snooping.
Pushed to respond to the atrocious attacks in Paris and Copenhagen and
by the threats posed by the Islamic State to Europe’s internal security,
several countries are amending their counterterrorism legislation to
grant more intrusive powers to security services, especially in terms of
mass electronic surveillance.
France recently adopted a controversial law on surveillance that permits
major intrusions, without prior judicial authorization, into the private
lives of suspects and those who communicate with them, live or work in
the same place or even just happen to be near them.
The German Parliament adopted a new data retention law on Oct. 16 that
requires telecommunications operators and Internet service providers to
retain connection data for up to 10 weeks. And the British government
intends to increase the authorities’ powers to carry out mass
surveillance and bulk collection of intercepted data.
Meanwhile, Austria is set to discuss a draft law that would allow a new
security agency to operate with reduced external control and to collect
and store communication data for up to six years. The Netherlands is
considering legislation allowing dragnet surveillance of all
telecommunications, indiscriminate gathering of metadata, decryption and
intrusion into the computers of non-suspects. And in Finland, the
government is even considering changing the Constitution to weaken
privacy protections in order to ease the adoption of a bill granting the
military and intelligence services the power to conduct electronic mass
surveillance with little oversight.
Governments now argue that to guarantee our security we have to
sacrifice some rights. This is a specious argument. By shifting from
targeted to mass surveillance, governments risk undermining democracy
while pretending to protect it.
They are also betraying a long political and judicial tradition
affording broad protection to privacy in Europe, where democratic legal
systems have evolved to protect individuals from arbitrary interference
by the state in their private and family life. The European Court of
Human Rights has long upheld the principle that surveillance interferes
with the right to privacy. Although the court accepts that the use of
confidential information is essential in combating terrorist threats, it
has held that the collection, use and storage of such information should
be authorized only under exceptional and precise conditions, and must be
accompanied by adequate legal safeguards and independent supervision.
The court has consistently applied this principle for decades when it
was called to judge the conduct of several European countries, which
were combating domestic terrorist groups.
More recently, as new technologies have offered more avenues to increase
surveillance and data collection, the court has reiterated its position
in a number of leading cases against several countries, including
France, Romania, Russia and Britain, condemned for having infringed the
right to private and family life that in the interpretation of the court
covers also “the physical and psychological integrity of a person.”
Last year, the European Court of Justice set limits on telecommunication
data retention. By invalidating a European Union directive for its
unnecessary “wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the
fundamental right to respect for private life” and personal data, this
court reaffirmed the outstanding place privacy holds in Europe. This
judgment echoed a 2006 German Constitutional Court ruling that the
German police had breached the individual right to self-determination
and human dignity after they conducted a computerized search of
suspected terrorists.
Regrettably, these judgments are often ignored by key decision-makers.
Many of the surveillance policies that have recently been adopted in
Europe fail to abide by these legal standards. Worse, many of the new
intrusive measures would be applied without any prior judicial review
establishing their legality, proportionality or necessity. This gives
excessive power to governments and creates a clear risk of arbitrary
application and abuse.
If European governments and parliaments do not respect fundamental
principles and judicial obligations, our lives will become much less
private. Our ability to participate effectively in public life is
threatened, too, because these measures curtail our freedom of speech
and our right to receive information — including that of public
interest. Not all whistleblowers have the technical knowledge Mr.
Snowden possessed. Many would fear discovery if they communicated with
journalists, who in turn would lose valuable sources, jeopardizing their
ability to reveal unlawful conduct in both the public and private
spheres. Watergates can only happen when whistleblowers feel protected.
Indiscriminate mass surveillance can also impinge on attorney-client
privilege and medical confidentiality. You might think twice before
seeing a lawyer or a doctor, knowing that the authorities — and private
companies — are aware of your communications and movements.
It is essential that European countries pause and consider the damage
they have done. At a minimum, three core safeguards should be provided.
First, legislation should limit surveillance and the use of data in a
way that strictly respects the right to privacy as spelled out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, European data protection standards, the case
law of the European Court of Human Rights and that of the European Court
of Justice. These norms oblige states to respect human rights when they
gather and store information relating to our private lives and to
protect individuals from unlawful surveillance, including when carried
out by foreign agencies.
Second, there must be rigorous procedures for the examination, use and
storage of all data obtained, and those subjected to surveillance should
be given a chance to exercise their legal rights to appeal.
Third, security agencies must operate under independent scrutiny and
judicial review. This will require intrusive oversight powers for
parliaments and a judiciary that is involved in the decision-making
process to ensure accountability. Countries that have adopted
controversial surveillance laws should reconsider or amend them. And
those considering new surveillance legislation should do so with great
caution.
Terrorism is a real threat and it requires an effective response. But
adopting surveillance measures that undermine human rights and the rule
of law is not the solution.
Nils Muiznieks is the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.
Mais informações acerca da lista Ansol-geral