Title of the article

Legal Basis for Mass Interception of Electronic Communications: Practice of the European Court of Human Rights (UK Experience)

 Authors 

Vladislav G. Romanovsky —  Сandidate of Law, Associate Professor of the Sub-department of Criminal Law, Penza State University, 40 Krasnaya street, Penza, 440026, Russia, up406@mail.ru

 Category 

PUBLIC-LEGAL (STATE-LEGAL) SCIENCES

Year,.Volume, Number 

2021, Vol. 9, № 4 (36)

 Pages 

108-117

 Article type 

Original article

 Index UDK 

34.05

 DOI 

10.21685/2307-9525-2021-9-4-13

 Abstract 

Background. The fight against terrorism is a hot topic. This threat is not decreasing, which forces almost all states around the world to update the strategy and tactics of countering this criminal activity. A special place in the system of detecting crimes of a terrorist nature is occupied by special services carrying out a massive interception of electronic communications. The research aims at analyzing the UK practices in implementing measures for mass interception of electronic communications. The UK experience is distinguished by a detailed model of legal regulation that has been tested by the European Court of Human Rights. The final decision of this European authority, namely the judgment dated 13 September 2018 in the case “Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom”, still provokes scientific debate and criticism of human rights organiza-tions. Materials and methods. The empirical basis of the research is the UK legal acts on countering terrorism and court materials that formed the basis of the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights dated September 13, 2018. The author uses the com-parative legal research method as the main one. Results. The major conclusion of the Eu-ropean Court of Human Rights was to give legitimacy and admissibility to the practice of mass interception of electronic communications. The court indicated that such powers of law enforcement agencies are included in the discretion of the state. Thus, the principles of protecting human rights and the criteria for ensuring quality of law in a democratic so-ciety must be observed. Conclusions. The gaps in UK law revealed during the proceedings led to further adoption of the updated documents in the field of countering terrorism. The research results indicate that Russian law does not provide for mass interception of elec-tronic communications among fast-track measures. This practice could be perceived by Russian lawmakers.

 Keywords 

terrorism, counteraction, mass interception, electronic communications, UK, European Court of Human Rights

 Download PDF

References

1. Gripich S.A. Legal Aspects of Introducing Digital Technologies in Public Administra-tion. Gosudarstvennaya vlast i mestnoe samoupravlenie = State Power and Local Government. 2021;(2):47–50. (In Russ.)
2. Lebedeva E.A., Sladkova A.V. On Digital Control Technologies in Public Administration in Foreign States. Administrativnoe pravo i protsess = Administrative Law and Administrative Process. 2020;(7):83–88. (In Russ.)
3. Panenkov A.A. System of Crimes in the Field of Computer Information Included Terrorist Activity (Cyber Terrorism) as a Real Threat to External and Internal Circuit of Russian National Security. Voenno-yuridicheskiy zhurnal = Military Law Journal. 2014;(4):3–13. (In Russ.)
4. Danilchenko E.D. Legal Basis for Countering Cyber Terrorism by Law Enforcement Agencies. Transportnoe pravo = Transport Law. 2015;(4):27–32. (In Russ.)
5. Antonyan E.A., Aminov I.I. Blockchain Technologies In Countering Cyber Terrorism. Aktualnye problemy rossiyskogo prava = Topical Problems of Russian Law. 2019;(6):167–177. (In Russ.)
6. Kaponyi E.K. Upholding Human Rights in the Fight against Terrorism. Society and Economy. 2007;29(1):1–41. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41472069?seq=1#page_
scan_tab_contents (accessed 15.10.2021).
7. Davis D.W., Silver B.D. Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science. 2004;48(1):28–46. Availa-ble at: https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/articles/davis.pdf (accessed 15.10.2021).
8. Gross E. The Struggle of a Democracy against Terrorism – Protection of Human Rights: The Right to Privacy versus the National Interest – the Proper Balance. Cornell International Law Journal. 2004;37(1):36.
9. Vinogradov N.S. On Responsibility for Crimes Related to Terrorism in UK Criminal Law. Istoriya gosudarstva i prava = History of State and Law. 2006;(11):8–10. (In Russ.)
10. Romanovsky G.B., Romanovskaya O.V. Prava cheloveka i bor'ba s terrorizmom: za-rubezhnyy opyt: monografiya = Human Rights and Fight against Terrorism: Foreign Practices: Monograph. Moscow: Prospekt, 2021:192. (In Russ.)
11. Bazarkina D.Yu. Fight against Terrorism in the UK (Communication Aspect). Sov-remennaya Evropa = Modern Europe. 2015;(1):45–55. (In Russ.)
12. Chernyadieva N.A. American Regional (OAS) and National (USA) Models of Combat-ing International Terrorism. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezh-dunarodnaya yustitsiya = International Criminal Law and International Justice. 2016;(1):26–29. (In Russ.)
13. Belskiy A.I., Yakimova V.I. Cyber Terrorism as One of the Most Dangerous Types of International Terrorism. Rossiyskiy sledovatel = Russian investigator. 2020;(5):66–70. (In Russ.)
14. Kuchumova T.L. Focuses and Features in Legal Regulation of Countering Terrorism in Foreign States. Yuridicheskiy mir = Legal World. 2012;(7):52–60. (In Russ.)
15. Romanovsky G.B. Legal Support of Countering Terrorism in the UK. Elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal «Nauka. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo» = Electronic scientific journal “Science. Society. State". 2017;5(4):64–69. (In Russ.)
16. Romanovsky G.B. Human Rights and Countering Terrorism in the UK. Grazhdanin i pravo = Citizen and Law. 2018;(10):34–45. (In Russ.)
17. Romanovskaya O.V. The Patriot Act: Restrictions on the Right to Privacy in the US to Counter Terrorism. Elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal «Nauka. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo» = Electronic scientific journal “Science. Society. State". 2017;5(2):10–16. (In Russ.)
18. Rusinova V. Legalization of “Mass Surveillance” by the European Court of Human Rights: What is behind the Judgment in Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom? Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie = International Justice. 2018;(4):3–20. (In Russ.)
19. Sicilianos L.-A. 70th Anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights: Important Dates and Significant Achievements. Opening remarks by the President of the Euro-pean Court of Human Rights Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (2019–2020). Byulleten Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka. Rossiyskoe izdanie = Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights. Russian Edition. 2021;(3):5–14. (In Russ.)
20. Gontar L.O. On the Protection of Personal Data as a System of International Infor-mation Cyber Security (Case Study of Certain International Organizations). Zhurnal zarubezh-nogo zakonodatelstva i sravnitelnogo pravovedeniya = Journal of Foreign Legislation and Com-parative Jurisprudence. 2020;(1):74–86. (In Russ.)

For citation

Romanovsky V.G. Legal Basis for Mass Interception of Electronic Communications: Practice of the European Court of Human Rights (UK Experience). Elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal "Nauka. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo" = Electronic scientific journal "Science. Society. State". 2021;9(4):108–117. (In Russ.). doi:10.21685/2307-9525-2021-9-4-13