Blogging the Election
| Permalink | 
Friday, September 08, 2006
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Ending one War, Fuelling Another: Pakistan, Waziristan & the Tabilan
The Government of Pakistan has been negotiating truces with militant groups in Waziristan. Why? Well, apart from the obvious unrest caused by ongoing hostilities, the US government appears to be encouraging such actions. Of course, some aren't happy. Diplomats claim that these fighters are now joining Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
One bad war creates another.
| Permalink |
World Law This Week
- Human Rights Watch is being heavily criticised by some for its approach to the Israel/Lebanon conduct. In particular, Avi Bell criticises (1, 2, 3) Ken Roth for being anti-Semitic and Kevin Heller (1, 2, 3) and Rosa Brooks (LA Times) protest. This wouldn’t be the first time a human rights organisation is accused of being anti-Semitic, or at least anti-Israel, but at some stage supporters of Israel will have to accept that the country is not above the law. Meanwhile the new Human Rights Council appoints a committee to consider international law violations in the conflict.
- The UN Security Council finally adopted a resolution to send a peacekeeping troop to Darfur. China, Russia and Qatar abstained, but the peacekeepers won’t be going until the Sudan agrees. That’s not likely to happen any time soon.
- The UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities is introduced. Will Ireland ratify and, if we do, will make any difference to, in particular, our abysmal approach to education for people with disabilities? The US won’t sign, but then again if they did they’d just deem it non-self-executing anyway… (heavier Yale Law Journal article explaining non-self-execution in the context of INS v St Cyr – good explanation)
- Former Presidential Candidate, Ollanta Humala (a.k.a. Captain Carlos), has been indicted for violations of human rights in Peru, including torture. If he’d been elected would he have enjoyed immunity from prosecution??
| Permalink |
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
DRI v Ireland
As widely reported Digital Rights Ireland appear to be preparing legal proceedings against the State in relation to the directive issued by Mary O'Rourke in 2002 to telecommunications providers to keep a record of commuications by individuals for three years, which can then be accessed by Gardai without a warrant if they believe it will help in investigation of criminality. DRI explain the legal background to the directive
The Minister for Public Enterprise (as she then was) purported to issue those directions under Section 110 (1) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 requiring telecommunications providers to retain that data, being detailed non-anonymous traffic data, and to retain it for a 3 year period, for the purpose of facilitating requests from An Garda Siochana and from the Defense Forces under Sections 98A and 98B of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, as inserted by Section 13 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (regulation) Act 1993.
Have a look at the rest of the legal brief on the DRI blog
This is going to be an interesting one. DRI are going to have to show not only a breach of privacy rights (which shouldn't be too difficult) but also that the breach is disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. This might be somewhat more difficult. To latch on to the mobile phone issue, my understanding is not phone calls or text messages are to be recorded, but that the fact that a call was made/received, by whom, from whom, when and where (physically). If evidence of such a nature could in fact help in the investigation of a crime then can't the State make a relatively convincing argument that the surveillance is limited (because conversations aren't being recorded) and that it is proportionate to the desired objective? I don't necessarily agree, but it's an argument that wil undoubtedly be made.
My understanding is that the proceedings are going to be largely on data rentention grounds, which is not my area of expertise or even interest despite a seemingly endless year of IT and data protection law sometime in the last century (TJ of course is the real expert here), but the case will certainly be interesting if it proceeds.
This is going to be an interesting one. DRI are going to have to show not only a breach of privacy rights (which shouldn't be too difficult) but also that the breach is disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. This might be somewhat more difficult. To latch on to the mobile phone issue, my understanding is not phone calls or text messages are to be recorded, but that the fact that a call was made/received, by whom, from whom, when and where (physically). If evidence of such a nature could in fact help in the investigation of a crime then can't the State make a relatively convincing argument that the surveillance is limited (because conversations aren't being recorded) and that it is proportionate to the desired objective? I don't necessarily agree, but it's an argument that wil undoubtedly be made.
My understanding is that the proceedings are going to be largely on data rentention grounds, which is not my area of expertise or even interest despite a seemingly endless year of IT and data protection law sometime in the last century (TJ of course is the real expert here), but the case will certainly be interesting if it proceeds.
| Permalink |
Last posts
Archives
Links
- Blogger Templates
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.