Re: COE Recommendation No. R (95) 13
Forgive me if this point has already been raised, but couldn't an objection to such laws be based on the protection against self-incrimination?
There is no such right in most (if not all) european countries. In France there is not even the presumption of innocence.
[Further depressing news deleted] Yes, this was my understanding. I guess the point I was groping toward was that while we could hardly expect that our rights vis-a-vis electronic privacy would be any _better_ than our rights in obviously analogous non-electronic areas, they might well be worse; it's important to be clear, and to make clear, that what rights we have left have obvious extensions to our net.activities, and try to prevent the thin end of the wedge from being inserted in our portion of the perimeter. Of course, this only applies to the set of people who live in countries where people _have_ any rights, and as Phill implies, that may soon be the null set. --Michael Smith smithmi@dev.prodigy.com
sorry, but there is a right to remain silent in Europe: [quoting from footnote 360 (whatsamatter you didn't get that far?) of my Clipper paper:] The European court of Human Rights recently ruled that the right to right to remain silent is guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (formerly known as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), Nov. 4, 1950, art. 6(1), 213 U.N.T.S. 221. See Funke v. France, 256 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 8 (1993) (holding that Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right against self-incrimination); Ying H. Tan, Use of DTI Interviews Unfair, INDEPENDENT (London), Sept. 30, 1994, at 30 (reporting the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in Saunders v. United Kingdom). On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Michael Smith wrote: 0
Forgive me if this point has already been raised, but couldn't an objection to such laws be based on the protection against self-incrimination?
There is no such right in most (if not all) european countries. In France there is not even the presumption of innocence.
[Further depressing news deleted]
Yes, this was my understanding. I guess the point I was groping
A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.
sorry, but there is a right to remain silent in Europe:
Pity the British Tories do not understand that. Because they brought in the stupid "right of the prosecution to bring attention to the defendants refussal to answer questions" it probably means that a very large number of current prosecutions will get sent down in about three years time. Guess the cost of that! It was only done because they had nothing else to spout at their conference. My father (who is a conservative and whose cousin was chairman of the party until recently) said he felt sick when he saw the conference on TV. Three strikes and you are out type stuff... Actually there is a set of crimes relating to fraud where there is a specific crime of refusal to answer interrogation. They messed this one up as well. Rather than phrase it that the trustees of a fund have a duty to account for the whereabouts of the funds at all times when asked they simply removed the right to silence. Since trustees take on a position voluntarily I don't see the same problems in requiring them to perform certain duties (which involve disclosure) as removing their right to silence. I don't think that the right to remain silent would be read in the manner asserted however. It is a question of refusal to provide materal evidence rather than a refusal to testify. Phill
participants (3)
-
hallam＠w3.org -
Michael Froomkin -
smithmi＠dev.prodigy.com