Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), the highest court in the country, has ruled that parts of a 2016 law that allowed monitoring of the internet activity of foreign targets outside of Germany are unconstitutional.
The judge ruled the matter was within the scope of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).One expert said the ruling reflected the "position that the European Court has taken over many years".The case went to court after the woman refused to delete photographs of her grandchildren which she had posted on social media.
In its press release about the decision, the court found that the privacy rights of the German constitution also protects foreigners in other countries and that the German intelligence agency, Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), had no authority to conduct telecommunications surveillance on them:.
The German government must come up with a new law regulating its secret services, after the country's highest court ruled that the current practice of monitoring telecommunications of foreign citizens at will violates constitutionally-enshrined press freedoms and the privacy of communications.
Below, we’ve provided a detailed breakdown of what this potential reality could look like when applied to one South Florida county’s public databases, along with information on how citizens and communities can use public data to better understand the behaviors of local law enforcement and even individual police officers.
But could the government require a similar application in the United States or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable searches?” Generally, the Fourth Amendment may be invoked when a search infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the government’s activity amounts to a trespass, per the Supreme Court’s holding in Katz v.
Christopher Wray, the FBI director who has been one of the fiercest critics of encryption under the Trump administration, previously worked as a lawyer for WhatsApp, where he defended the practice, according to new court filings.
Facebook representatives approached controversial surveillance vendor NSO Group to try and buy a tool that could help Facebook better monitor a subset of its users, according to an extraordinary court filing from NSO in an ongoing lawsuit.
In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”.
And yet, our right to anonymity online remains at risk.But most importantly, there are myriad reasons why anonymity and pseudonymity remain vital tools for free expression and safety.EFF was able to successfully appeal in District Court, however, and Darkspilver’s anonymity remains protected.
In the Federal Court lawsuit, the Australian Information Commissioner accused Facebook of breaching privacy law by disclosing 311,127 users' information for political profiling via a survey product, 'This Is Your Digital Life', on its website.
Image copyright Getty Images Australia's privacy regulator is taking Facebook to court over the Cambridge Analytica scandal."Facebook failed to take reasonable steps to protect those individuals' personal information from unauthorised disclosure," the Australian commissioner's office said.
The search warrant was based on the idea that the man had "stolen" a GPS tracking device belonging to the government.Last Thursday, Indiana's highest court made it official, ruling that the search warrant that allowed police to recover Heuring's meth was illegal.
According to documents obtained by TorrentFreak, the gaming giant has also obtained a DMCA subpoena from a US court, which compels Reddit to hand over the personal details of a user who allegedly posted a leaked image to the site.
The lawyer for a Melbourne dentist who received an anonymous online negative review has welcomed the decision by an Australian Federal Court judge compelling Google to release the identity of the reviewer.
A Melbourne dentist who claims he was defamed in an anonymous online review has convinced a Federal Court judge to order technology giant Google to unmask the disgruntled customer so he can launch "groundbreaking" legal action.
In the UK, where the government is accelerating the development of robots in the benefits system, the chairman of the House of Commons work and pensions select committee, Stephen Timms, said: “This ruling by the Dutch courts demonstrates that parliaments ought to look very closely at the ways in which governments use technology in the social security system, to protect the rights of their citizens.”.
For months, legal experts who follow investigative genetic genealogy have expected search warrants to be issued to Ancestry and its main competitor, 23andMe, which has about 10 million DNA profiles in its database.
Image caption Nicholas Duggan was "very taken aback" to find his cash refused During a recent lunch hour in New York, a sea of office workers filled the Hudson Eats food court, where staff prepared pizza, barbecue and chopped salad orders at incredible speed.
With respect to , Roskomnadzor made a move on 29th December 2019 and submitted their case for blocking access to our services in Russia to a court in Moscow.
Then, in 2016, the CJEU affirmed that decision by ruling specifically that “EU law precludes national legislation that prescribes general and indiscriminate retention of data,” in what is known as the Tele2 Sverige and Watson judgment.
A bipartisan group in Congress is attempting (again) to pass legislation that would restrict the National Security Agency from abusing the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment (FISA) Court in order to collect and access private records of Americans.
Then, a Google recruiter came to campus and, Ms. Stapleton said, she “won ‘American Idol.’” The company flew her out to Mountain View, Calif., which felt to her “like the promised land” — 15 cafeterias, beach volleyball courts, Zumba classes, haircuts and laundry on-site.
This is the key part of the legal argument: “The provisions of the directive will not apply to activities which are intended to safeguard national security and are undertaken by the public authorities themselves, without requiring the cooperation of private individuals and, therefore, without imposing on them obligations in the management of business” (UK Case C-623/17, paragraph 34/79).”.
The lawsuit, which was filed earlier this month in the United States District Court, claims that Ring has shirked basic security measures that would help protect camera owners' accounts, even though the company has known that its devices are a popular target for hackers.
In a decision [PDF] that could put an end to a practice that civil-liberties groups have decried as illegal for years, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that the way the Feds today use a database of seized communications “would be at odds with the bedrock Fourth Amendment concept that law enforcement agents may not invade the privacy of individuals without some objective reason to believe that evidence of crime will be found by a search.”.
C19-1911 MJP INTERNATIONAL INC, 11 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, EX PARTE MOTION FOR 12 EXPEDITED DISCOVERY v.22 // 23 // 24 // ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY - 1 Case 2:19-cv-01911-MJP Document 5 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 2 1 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.