CyberLaw Blog

Archive for December 4th, 2008

The case concerned the retention by the UK authorities of the applicants’ fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles after criminal proceedings against them were terminated by an acquittal and were discontinued respectively. The European Court of Human Rights in one its most important decisions found a violation of article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court in summary stated that:

“The Court observes that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal-justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests. In the Court’s view, the strong consensus existing among the Contracting States in this respect is of considerable importance and narrows the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State in the assessment of the permissible limits of the interference with private life in this sphere. The Court considers that any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bears special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.”

(more…)

Online Censorship in Thailand: Internet Business Law

IBLS Editorial Department- Staff Attorney
Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Thailand has a long history of government- authorized censorship. The 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand and the 1997 Constitution guarantee freedom of speech with the proviso that censorship may be imposed in certain circumstances. Additionally, Thailand’s Computer-Related Crimes Act, which was introduced by the military junta, imposes some limitations by penalizing a range of computer-related speeches.

The 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand guarantees freedom of speech but a law may impose censorship ‘for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State, protecting the rights, liberties, dignity, reputation, family or privacy rights of other persons, maintaining public order or good morals or preventing or halting the deterioration of the mind or health of the public.’

One of the first orders passed by the military junta that took power in Thailand on September 19, 2006, was to appoint an Official Censor of the Military Coup. The military junta took its cue from the overthrown elected government, which had publicly stated that it intended to block 800,000 Websites from Internet users in Thailand. Between the ascension of the military junta and Thailand’s general election in December 2007, the Official Censor blocked 17,793. In addition, the Royal Thai Police claimed having blocked a further 32,500 Websites.