This case shows how many elements of information privacy and anonymity played roll in following up on the case. It proofs that Information technology and the capability it provides in retaining data helps in providing evidences in cases as such.
The most interesting bit for me, and probably a strong element of evidence against the man accused of murder, is collecting data of what he searched on the internet. This includes;
1- The court was told that Tabak had searched for information on the length of murder and manslaughter sentences.
2- He also searched online for "body decomposition time" while detectives were hunting for Miss Yeates.
3- Tabak also constantly searched the Avon and Somerset Police website for details of the case and used Google Maps to view the location Miss Yeates's body was found.
4- When alone at work or at home his internet activity became ever more consumed, following news items as if almost following the police investigation as it unfolded.
Saying this, I am in favor or privacy and anonymity protection, but where shall we draw the line?
Proportionality is the key here. As we often see in many ECtHR cases (e.g. see, Amann v Switzerland [2000] & Iordachi and others v Moldova [2009]) governments are continually breaching rights enshrined in Article 8 ECHR. This is seen most often where legal provisions to govern data retention do not exist. Though, in Association for European Integration and Human Rights and another v Bulgaria [2007] the Special Surveillance Means Act of 1997 was questioned. Thus, is the aim for which the State intends to retain the data a proportionate one? Khan v UK [2000] has shown that guidelines are unlikely to be sufficient protection to prevent a State acting ultra vires. Therefore, regardless of the nature or intention of the data retention the State must take adequate measures to ensure that the breach of Article 8 ECHR is proportionate.
In the aforementioned murder trial is important to consider the burden of proof – beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases. Does this mean 90% sure or 97% or even 99.99r% sure that the defendant is guilty? I don’t know if anyone knows the answer but if the use of computer data is vital to the case and legislation exists to allow access then can that be considered proportionate? Also, as the defendant in this case admits manslaughter I think accessing his computer will not be disparaged upon. Would it matter is the case related to a suspected drug dealer growing marijuana? See the Canadian case of R v Tessling [2004]. In this case the Court seems to indicate that the section 8 CCRF rights will only be infringed if the breach was to expose an intimate detail of the defendant’s life. Would computer searches expose an intimate detail of the defendant’s life? Unlikely, but it could be vital for proving premeditation.
This case shows how many elements of information privacy and anonymity played roll in following up on the case. It proofs that Information technology and the capability it provides in retaining data helps in providing evidences in cases as such.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting bit for me, and probably a strong element of evidence against the man accused of murder, is collecting data of what he searched on the internet. This includes;
1- The court was told that Tabak had searched for information on the length of murder and manslaughter sentences.
2- He also searched online for "body decomposition time" while detectives were hunting for Miss Yeates.
3- Tabak also constantly searched the Avon and Somerset Police website for details of the case and used Google Maps to view the location Miss Yeates's body was found.
4- When alone at work or at home his internet activity became ever more consumed, following news items as if almost following the police investigation as it unfolded.
Saying this, I am in favor or privacy and anonymity protection, but where shall we draw the line?
Proportionality is the key here. As we often see in many ECtHR cases (e.g. see, Amann v Switzerland [2000] & Iordachi and others v Moldova [2009]) governments are continually breaching rights enshrined in Article 8 ECHR. This is seen most often where legal provisions to govern data retention do not exist. Though, in Association for European Integration and Human Rights and another v Bulgaria [2007] the Special Surveillance Means Act of 1997 was questioned. Thus, is the aim for which the State intends to retain the data a proportionate one? Khan v UK [2000] has shown that guidelines are unlikely to be sufficient protection to prevent a State acting ultra vires. Therefore, regardless of the nature or intention of the data retention the State must take adequate measures to ensure that the breach of Article 8 ECHR is proportionate.
ReplyDeleteIn the aforementioned murder trial is important to consider the burden of proof – beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases. Does this mean 90% sure or 97% or even 99.99r% sure that the defendant is guilty? I don’t know if anyone knows the answer but if the use of computer data is vital to the case and legislation exists to allow access then can that be considered proportionate? Also, as the defendant in this case admits manslaughter I think accessing his computer will not be disparaged upon. Would it matter is the case related to a suspected drug dealer growing marijuana? See the Canadian case of R v Tessling [2004]. In this case the Court seems to indicate that the section 8 CCRF rights will only be infringed if the breach was to expose an intimate detail of the defendant’s life. Would computer searches expose an intimate detail of the defendant’s life? Unlikely, but it could be vital for proving premeditation.