EU Privacy Chief Says ACTA Violates European Law

An anonymous reader writes "Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, has issued a 20-page opinion expressing concern about ACTA (PDF). Michael Geist's summary of the opinion notes that it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you're out system may violate European privacy law, that the possibility of cross-border enforcement raises serious privacy issues, and that ACTA transparency is needed now."

Comments

Seems fairly intelligent...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

One of the points he makes, which is a good one, is that data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justify. It also makes me wonder if--for example--I live in a country with fair use and a country with more stringent fair use policies wants to go after me for copyright infringement... well, you see the issues. Will the country with the most stringent policies suddenly be the equivalent of the patent troll district in Texas?

Re:Seems fairly intelligent...

[commodore64_love]

>>>That is because such a (ridiculous) thing does not exist in most European countries. See the Wikipedia entry on Civil Law.

A wise man once said, "People may think you are stupid. Don't open you mouth and prove them right." First off, it's not ridiculous to have a trial by your peers, since it is your peers that have the power to block the government from acting unjustly. Second, a 3-strike law where the *government* disconnects the internet as *punishment* would be CRIMINAL law not civil. And finally the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not have a right of trial by your peers, but it does still have the right to a trial:

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right toan effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.

Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence
1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to
law. 2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.

Receiving punishment (your internet cut off) without trial violates article 47. It also violates article 48 because it presumes guilt without the government having to prove its case.

Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out

[Xest]

But this is the problem. We've got these top secret negotations that are clearly secret, because there will be massive opposition to them, (else there'd be no reason to keep them secret) and the hope is that they can slip these laws into each country without the populace even noticing. If even half the law makers aren't party to the negotiations they can only go by what is available.

These sorts of laws like 3-strikes really do breach the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also specifically in terms of the right to fair trial, and the reasonable right to privacy. Further, most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.

So we've got this situation where governments are trying to pass these laws regardless, even though they are clearly in conflict with existing, more fundamental laws. In Europe, this has happened repeatedly this last decade with the likes of the British government's DNA database storing DNA of the innocent and so forth, and the end result is always the same - the law gets deemed illegal in itself by the European Court of Human Rights and change has to happen, or governments will face penalty, but in the meantime it is citizens who have to deal with all the shit.

So regardless of whether this guy is right or wrong, it doesn't really matter, he's making comments based on what he does know, and that's really key, because if at least he can make the point heard that it's about time they start thinking of the consequences and repercussions of the laws, and whether they are legal BEFORE they implement them, then that's a good thing. I don't however, hold much faith, because those passing such laws seem to do so on the hope that no one will notice said laws have been passed- but we do notice, because we're the ones they potentially effect.

Good on him for making the point regardless, they need to know that we are listening, we do know about it, and that these laws will end up just being shot down by the courts anyway.

Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway

[91degrees]

Yes, but treaties seem to be a way around this. Governments don't need public approval for treaties. The treaties just obligate them to make appropriate laws. The public can have input into the laws after the treaty is signed but have considerably less say over it.

Of course, the US (presumably other countries) often avoids treaty obligations because the constitution makes it impossible to write laws.

Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out

[El Jynx]

We SHOULD be against any form of copyright protection on principle. It goes against nature (copying is natural) and hence will require LOADS of energy to enforce - from policy makers, judges, and cops to sysadmins and users. Get rid of it; there's plenty of better ways to get this done. Open source collaboration is one, alternate business models are another. The record companies have already been made superfluous by these developments and they know it, but they're doing their damnedest to become tyrants rather than adjust to life's flux.