Search
Generic filters
09 May 2023
,

Passengers Name Records and Security

The EU Passenger Name Records Directive is based on the logic of preventive security. Th CJEU ruling, Ligue des droits humains, offers an opportunity for national judges to question more radically the idea of generalised preventive security that seeks to anticipate human behaviour through the creation of risk profiles and statistical correlations (instead of causality). Continue reading >>
0
08 May 2023

Machine learning and profiling in the PNR system

Automated processing of personal data, which is what Passenger Name Record data are, can lead to forms of profiling; certain individuals or groups of people are more likely to be excluded based on the transfer of their data than others. In its Passenger Name Record judgment, the CJEU extensively discusses discrimination risks, and it set a number of conditions to prevent them. Unfortunately, not all of its considerations are perfectly clear and some of the solutions the CJEU proposes are not entirely satisfactory. Continue reading >>
0
08 May 2023
,

Automated predictive threat detection after Ligue des Droits Humains

On 21 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union released its judgment regarding the compatibility of the EU Directive on Passenger Name Record Data with the rights to privacy and personal data protection. Ligue des droits humains has already qualified as a landmark decision, where the Court had the opportunity, among other aspects, to provide comprehensive guidelines on how large-scale predictive policing should take place. The ruling could be used as an inspiration for the legal assessment of various new security law instruments which require automated predictive threat detection instruments. Continue reading >>
0
20 May 2022

The European Union and Preventive (In)Justice

The expansion of the EU counter-terrorism acquis has signified what I have called the preventive turn in European security policy. Preventive justice is understood here as the exercise of state power in order to prevent future acts which are deemed to constitute security threats. There are three main shifts in the preventive justice paradigm: (i) a shift from an investigation of acts which have taken place to an emphasis on suspicion; (ii) a shift from targeted action to generalised surveillance; and, underpinning both, (iii) a temporal shift from the past to the future. Continue reading >>
0
03 March 2022
,

Time for Military Integration in the EU?

For decades, the EU’s security and defence policy was largely looked at as a theoretical piece in the overall puzzle of the Union’s external role. During the past week, however, the unthinkable happened, and European defence policy has taken a significant leap forward. This brings to fore questions about the legal nature of the security and mutual assistance provisions in the EU Treaties, including the relationship between aligned and non-aligned States in EU defence policy. Continue reading >>
28 November 2020

The Rise of a Dissuasive Democracy in France

On November 24, 2020 the French National Assembly adopted the Global Security Act by a wide margin. The bill entrenches the cooperation between public and private security forces, broadly regulates the use of surveillance drones, and strengthens the legal protection offered to security officers identified on videos that circulate on social media. The GSA is a perfect illustration of what I call a dissuasive democracy, meaning a regime where civil liberties are facially guaranteed by the constitution, but where laws and regulations are designed to dissuade individuals from exercising their civil liberties. Continue reading >>
22 February 2016

Es ist wieder da: Der EuGH bestätigt das Grundrecht auf Sicherheit

Vor zwei Jahren, in seinem epochalen Urteil zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung, erwähnte der EuGH erstmals ein eigenständiges Grundrecht auf Sicherheit, welches sich aus Art. 6 GRCh ergeben soll. Eine höchst fragwürdige Innovation: schließlich soll das Grundrecht im Wesentlichen vor willkürlichen Verhaftungen schützen, mit anderen Worten will es die Sicherheit vor dem Staat, nicht durch den Staat. Dass diese beiläufige Erwähnung dieses „Grundrechts auf Sicherheit“ kein Ausrutscher war, bestätigt jetzt eine neue Entscheidung der Großen Kammer. Darin bekräftigt der EuGH, und zwar unter explizitem Verweis auf die entsprechende Passage in Digital Rights Ireland, dass nach Art. 6 GRCh jeder Mensch nicht nur das Recht auf Freiheit, sondern auch auf Sicherheit hat (Rn. 53). Europa ist damit nun also tatsächlich um ein Grundrecht reicher geworden – allerdings um ein mehr als zweifelhaftes. Continue reading >>
21 November 2015

Terrorgefahr und Vorratsdatenspeicherung in Europa: unterschiedlichste nationale Schutzstandards mangels klarer unionsrechtlicher Grenzen

Bereits wenige Tage bevor Europa durch Terrorangriffe in Paris erschüttert wurde, haben sich in Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland bemerkenswerte sicherheitsrechtliche Kurskorrekturen vollzogen. Sie betreffen insbesondere das Instrument der Vorratsdatenspeicherung und gewinnen angesichts der Debatte, welche Lehren wir aus den jüngsten Anschlägen ziehen sollten, enorm an Relevanz. Continue reading >>
07 October 2015

Schrems v. Commissioner: A Biblical Parable of Judicial Power

We might celebrate the Court’s decision in Case C-362/14 as an improbable victory of good (data-privacy) over evil (consumer and intelligence data abuses). But I want to offer some words of caution about god-like judicial power. Continue reading >>
0
31 August 2015

Finnish Government and the Desire to Constitutionalize Mass Surveillance: Toward Permanent State of Emergency?

The Finnish Government intends to amend the constitution to clear the path for a NSA-type surveillance scheme. The form of constitutionalism that results from this kind of change would reverse the traditional grounds of legitimacy as set forth by the constitutions and human rights treaties: instead of providing one possible but narrowly interpreted ground for restricting right to confidential communications and protection of personal data, national security would occupy the position of a main rule while the constitutional right would wither away to a narrowly applied exception. In essence, the amendment would securitize one of the key fundamental rights of our time, and create a permanent state of emergency within it. Continue reading >>
0
Go to Top