University of Hertfordshire

Standard

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. / Romero Moreno, Felipe.

2014. Paper presented at BILETA 29th Annual Conference, Norwich, United Kingdom.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Romero Moreno F. The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. 2014. Paper presented at BILETA 29th Annual Conference, Norwich, United Kingdom.

Author

Bibtex

@conference{ce1e91139395437f9bdc78826a7989c7,
title = "The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR",
abstract = "Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) obligation to notify subscribers of Copyright Infringement Reports (CIRs) (Section 3 of the DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It draws on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom{\textquoteright}s Initial Obligations Code (the Code), the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, and the DEA judicial review appeal decision, i.e., BT Plc and Talk Talk Telecom Group Plc v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others. This paper focuses on the three-parts of the Strasbourg Court{\textquoteright}s cumulative test, in an effort to determine whether Section 3 of the DEA: firstly, is {\textquoteleft}in accordance with the law{\textquoteright}; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is {\textquoteleft}necessary{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}proportionate{\textquoteright}, and as to whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber{\textquoteright}s right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. The paper provides an in-depth examination of the three-parts of the ECtHR{\textquoteright}s cumulative test. It contrasts parts one, two and three of the ECtHR{\textquoteright}s test with the Code{\textquoteright}s provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 3 of the DEA with Article 8 of the ECHR. It concludes that Section 3 of the DEA must be specifically targeted to serious online copyright infringement cases of {\textquoteleft}commercial scale{\textquoteright}. The contrary rule would mean that it neither would be {\textquoteleft}in accordance with the law{\textquoteright} nor {\textquoteleft}necessary{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteleft}proportionate{\textquoteright}; that is to say, it would infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR{\textquoteright}s test, thus violating subscribers{\textquoteright} Article 8 ECHR rights under the Convention.",
keywords = "Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA), subscriber monitoring , right to privacy, Article 8 ECHR, MarkMonitor DtecNet, covert surveillance, RIPA",
author = "{Romero Moreno}, Felipe",
note = "Moreno, F., (2014), 'The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; Subscriber monitor and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. Paper presented at the British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association (Bileta) 29th Annual Conference 2014, {"}Legal Regulation and Education: Doing the Right Thing?{"}. University of East Anglia, 14-16th April 2014.; BILETA 29th Annual Conference ; Conference date: 14-04-2014 Through 16-04-2015",
year = "2014",
month = apr,
day = "14",
language = "English",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR

AU - Romero Moreno, Felipe

N1 - Moreno, F., (2014), 'The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; Subscriber monitor and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. Paper presented at the British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association (Bileta) 29th Annual Conference 2014, "Legal Regulation and Education: Doing the Right Thing?". University of East Anglia, 14-16th April 2014.

PY - 2014/4/14

Y1 - 2014/4/14

N2 - Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) obligation to notify subscribers of Copyright Infringement Reports (CIRs) (Section 3 of the DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It draws on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom’s Initial Obligations Code (the Code), the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, and the DEA judicial review appeal decision, i.e., BT Plc and Talk Talk Telecom Group Plc v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others. This paper focuses on the three-parts of the Strasbourg Court’s cumulative test, in an effort to determine whether Section 3 of the DEA: firstly, is ‘in accordance with the law’; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’, and as to whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. The paper provides an in-depth examination of the three-parts of the ECtHR’s cumulative test. It contrasts parts one, two and three of the ECtHR’s test with the Code’s provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 3 of the DEA with Article 8 of the ECHR. It concludes that Section 3 of the DEA must be specifically targeted to serious online copyright infringement cases of ‘commercial scale’. The contrary rule would mean that it neither would be ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary’ or ‘proportionate’; that is to say, it would infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR’s test, thus violating subscribers’ Article 8 ECHR rights under the Convention.

AB - Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) obligation to notify subscribers of Copyright Infringement Reports (CIRs) (Section 3 of the DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It draws on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom’s Initial Obligations Code (the Code), the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, and the DEA judicial review appeal decision, i.e., BT Plc and Talk Talk Telecom Group Plc v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others. This paper focuses on the three-parts of the Strasbourg Court’s cumulative test, in an effort to determine whether Section 3 of the DEA: firstly, is ‘in accordance with the law’; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’, and as to whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. The paper provides an in-depth examination of the three-parts of the ECtHR’s cumulative test. It contrasts parts one, two and three of the ECtHR’s test with the Code’s provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 3 of the DEA with Article 8 of the ECHR. It concludes that Section 3 of the DEA must be specifically targeted to serious online copyright infringement cases of ‘commercial scale’. The contrary rule would mean that it neither would be ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary’ or ‘proportionate’; that is to say, it would infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR’s test, thus violating subscribers’ Article 8 ECHR rights under the Convention.

KW - Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA)

KW - subscriber monitoring

KW - right to privacy

KW - Article 8 ECHR

KW - MarkMonitor DtecNet

KW - covert surveillance

KW - RIPA

UR - http://www.bileta.ac.uk/Conference%20Papers/29th%20Annual%20Conference%202014

M3 - Paper

T2 - BILETA 29th Annual Conference

Y2 - 14 April 2014 through 16 April 2015

ER -