DOCSLIB.ORG

Report, Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT CIVIL LIABILITY FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY This report can be found on the Internet at: <http://www.hkreform.gov.hk> December 2004 The Law Reform Commission was established by the Executive Council in January 1980. The Commission considers such reforms of the laws of Hong Kong as may be referred to it by the Secretary for Justice or the Chief Justice. The members of the Commission at present are: The Hon Ms Elsie Leung Oi Sie, GBM, JP, Secretary for Justice (Chairman) The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Li, Chief Justice Mr Tony Yen, SBS, JP, Law Draftsman Dr John Bacon-Shone The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary, PJ Professor Albert Chen, JP Mr Anthony Chow, SBS, JP Professor Y K Fan, JP Mr Alan Hoo, SBS, SC, JP The Hon Mrs Sophie Leung, SBS, JP Professor Mike McConville Mr Benjamin Yu, SC The Secretary of the Commission is Mr Stuart M I Stoker and its offices are at: 20/F Harcourt House 39 Gloucester Road Wanchai Hong Kong Telephone: 2528 0472 Fax: 2865 2902 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.hkreform.gov.hk THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT CIVIL LIABILITY FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY _____________________________________ CONTENTS Chapter Page Preface 1 1. The right of privacy 6 The notion of “privacy” 6 Psychological aspects of privacy 14 Functions of privacy 16 2. Protection of privacy under existing laws 19 Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR 19 Common law 19 Trespass to land 20 Nuisance 21 Breach of confidence 23 Infringement of copyright 27 Breach of contract 27 Intentional infliction of emotional distress causing physical harm 27 Trespass to the person 28 Defamation 29 Malicious falsehood 29 Kaye v Robertson 30 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance 30 Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance 31 The Data Protection Principles 31 Rights of redress 35 Protection of freedom of the press 36 Limitations of the PD(P)O 37 Concluding remarks 43 i 3. Freedom of expression and the right to privacy 46 Right of privacy and free speech values 46 Freedom of the press 49 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 52 American Convention on Human Rights 55 European Convention on Human Rights 56 4. The law of privacy in other jurisdictions 61 Australia 61 Austria 63 Brazil 64 Canada 64 Mainland China 68 Denmark 69 England and Wales 69 Estonia 73 France 73 Germany 75 Hungary 77 India 77 Ireland 78 Italy 79 Lithuania 80 Macao, China 80 The Netherlands 81 New Zealand 81 Norway 84 The Philippines 84 Russia 84 South Africa 85 South Korea 86 Spain 86 Taiwan, China 86 United States 87 Other jurisdictions 89 Conclusion 90 5. Providing civil remedies to victims of unwarranted invasion of privacy 91 Need for civil protection against invasion of privacy 91 Judicial development or legislation? 97 Legislative approach to the creation of a tort of invasion of privacy 105 ii 6. Intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another 108 Need for protection from intrusion upon privacy 108 Reasonable expectation of privacy 117 Intrusion upon the “solitude” or “seclusion” of another 119 Physical intrusion 124 Non-physical intrusion 125 Aural surveillance 126 Visual surveillance 128 Intrusion into the private affairs or concerns of another 129 Unauthorised filming by a lawful visitor 131 Standard of liability 134 Offensiveness of an intrusion 134 Conclusion 136 Comments made by respondents 137 Privacy in the workplace 140 Defences to an action for intrusion 141 Consent 141 One-party consent 142 Lawful authority 148 Legitimate interests justifying an intrusion 149 7. Unwarranted publicity given to an individual’s private life 152 The need to provide a civil remedy for unwarranted publicity 152 Matters concerning an individual’s private life 156 Publicity vs disclosure to a selected few 161 Offensiveness of the publicity 163 Defences to an action for unwarranted publicity 166 Consent 166 Lawful authority 167 Privileged disclosure 167 Publicity in the public interest 168 Principle of proportionality 178 Legitimate aims of giving publicity to an individual’s private life 180 Facts concerning an individual’s private life that are available in the public domain 183 Facts available in public records 184 Facts concerning an individual’s private life in public places 190 Facts which have previously been disclosed to others 196 Concluding remarks 200 Relationship between intrusion and unwarranted publicity 202 8. Privacy of ex-offenders 205 iii 9. Anonymity of victims of crime 216 Anonymity of victims of sexual offences 216 Anonymity of victims of non-sexual crime 219 Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Ordinance 228 10. Appropriation of a person’s name or likeness 230 Is appropriation of a person’s identity a privacy concern? 230 Use of personal data in advertisements 243 11. Publicity placing someone in a false light and factual inaccuracies reported in the press 247 Existing protection 247 Overseas jurisprudence 251 Conclusion 264 12. Enforcing the right to privacy 266 Proof of damage 266 Damages 267 Injunction 267 Apology 268 Account of profits 269 Delivery up 269 Form of trial 271 Limitation period 274 Parties to a privacy action 275 13. Summary of recommendations 277 Annex List of those who responded to the Privacy Sub-committee’s Consultation Paper on Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy 282 iv Preface __________ 1. On 11 October 1989, under powers granted by the Governor-in-Council on 15 January 1980, the Attorney General and the Chief Justice referred to the Law Reform Commission for consideration the subject of “privacy”. 1 The Commission appointed a sub-committee to examine the current state of law and to make recommendations. The members of the sub-committee are as follows: Dr John Bacon-Shone (Chairman) Director, Social Sciences Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong Mr Don Brech Principal Consultant, Records Management International Limited (Former Director, Government Records Service) Professor Johannes M M Chan (from November 2001) Honorary Senior Counsel, Professor (Reader) and Dean, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong Mrs Patricia Chu, BBS, JP (till April 2001) Former Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Services), Social Welfare Department Mr A F M Conway Chairman, Great River Corporation Limited Mr Edwin Lau Chairman, Hooray Holdings Limited (Former Assistant General Manager & Head of Strategic Implementation Asia Pacific, HSBC) Mr Robin McLeish (from February 2000) Barrister-at-law (Former Deputy Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data) 1 The Commission’s terms of reference are as follows: “To examine existing Hong Kong laws affecting privacy and to report on whether legislative or other measures are required to provide protection against, and to provide remedies in respect of, undue interference with the privacy of the individual with particular reference to the following matters: (a) the acquisition, collection, recording and storage of information and opinions pertaining to individuals by any persons or bodies, including Government departments, public bodies, persons or corporations; (b) the disclosure or communication of the information or opinions referred to in paragraph (a) to any person or body including any Government department, public body, person or corporation in or out of Hong Kong; (c) intrusion (by electronic or other means) into private premises; and (d) the interception of communications, whether oral or recorded; but excluding inquiries on matters falling within the Terms of Reference of the Law Reform Commission on either Arrest or Breach of Confidence.” 1 Mr Barry Mortimer, GBS Non-Permanent Judge, Court of Final Appeal (Former Vice-President, Court of Appeal) (Chairman of sub-committee from 1990 till August 1999) Mr James O’Neil Deputy Solicitor General (Constitutional), Department of Justice Mrs Kathy NG Ma Kam-han (from April 2001 to April 2003) Assistant Director (Elderly), Social Welfare Department Mr Peter So Lai-yin (till November 2001) Former General Manager, Hong Kong Note Printing Limited Professor Raymond Wacks Emeritus Professor of Law and Legal Theory, The University of Hong Kong (Chairman of sub-committee from August 1999 to December 2001) Mr Wong Kwok-wah Editor, Asia Times-On-Line (Chinese version) 2. The secretary of the Sub-committee is Mr Godfrey K F Kan, Senior Government Counsel. 3. The first task of the Privacy Sub-committee was to study the collection, recording, storage and disclosure of personal data. This resulted in the Commission report on Reform of the Law Relating to the Protection of Personal Data published in August 1994. Thereafter, the Sub-committee issued a consultation paper on the regulation of surveillance and the interception of communications. This was followed by the Commission report on Privacy: Regulating the Interception of Communications published in December 1996. In relation to the regulation of surveillance, the Sub-committee decided that the civil aspects of invasion of privacy should be looked into first before it finalised its recommendations on surveillance. The Sub-committee therefore published a consultation paper on Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy in August 1999. That consultation paper covered the civil aspects of surveillance as well as other forms of invasion of privacy, and was published together with the consultation paper on The Regulation of Media Intrusion. The criminal aspects of surveillance will be dealt with in the Commission report on criminal sanctions for unlawful surveillance to be issued later. 4. The Privacy Sub-committee recommended in the Consultation Paper on Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy (“the Consultation Paper”) that a person should be liable in tort if he, without justification, (a) intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another or into his private affairs, or (b) gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another. The Sub-committee received 21 submissions on the Consultation Paper. The list of respondents is at the Annex.
Recommended publications
  • THE TAKE-OFF of DRONES Developing the New Zealand Torts

    THE TAKE-OFF of DRONES Developing the New Zealand Torts

    ASHLEY M VARNEY THE TAKE-OFF OF DRONES Developing the New Zealand torts of privacy to meet the rise in civilian drone technology Submitted for the LLB (Honours) Degree Faculty of Law Victoria University of Wellington 2016 Abstract This paper assesses the privacy ramifications associated with the rise in the use of civilian drone technology. It discusses the capabilities of drones to take photographs, record videos and undertake ongoing surveillance, and distinguishes these capabilities from previous similar technologies such as CCTV and standard cameras. It is argued that the current approach to the New Zealand privacy torts is not adequate to allow for effective claims when breaches of privacy occur by drone operators. It is advocated that the theoretical premise of the torts, and the overall protection of privacy, is best served by emphasis on both a normative and multifaceted approach to the test of a reasonable expectation of privacy where drones are concerned. Moreover, privacy breaches by drones may be undermined by the highly offensive requirement found within both torts, as well as the mental element of intention found within the C v Holland tort. Keywords: "Drones", "Privacy", "Tort", "Wrongful Publication of Private Facts", "Intrusion into Seclusion". 2 Contents I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4 II UNDERSTANDING PRIVACY ...................................................................... 5 A What is ‘Privacy’? .............................................................................................
  • Personal Data Protection

    Personal Data Protection

    Factsheet – Personal data protection May 2021 This factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive Personal data protection “The mere storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence1] ... The subsequent use of the stored information has no bearing on that finding ... However, in determining whether the personal information retained by the authorities involves any ... private-life [aspect] ..., the Court will have due regard to the specific context in which the information at issue has been recorded and retained, the nature of the records, the way in which these records are used and processed and the results that may be obtained ...” (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, judgment (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2008, § 67) Collection of personal data DNA information and fingerprints See below, under “Storage and use of personal data”, “In the context of police and criminal justice”. GPS data Uzun v. Germany 2 September 2010 The applicant, suspected of involvement in bomb attacks by a left-wing extremist movement, complained in particular that his surveillance via GPS and the use of the data obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him had violated his right to respect for private life. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The GPS surveillance and the processing and use of the data thereby obtained had admittedly interfered with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life.
  • Privacy in the 21St Century Studies in Intercultural Human Rights

    Privacy in the 21St Century Studies in Intercultural Human Rights

    Privacy in the 21st Century Studies in Intercultural Human Rights Editor-in-Chief Siegfried Wiessner St. Thomas University Board of Editors W. Michael Reisman, Yale University • Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, United Nations • Nora Demleitner, Hofstra University • Christof Heyns, University of Pretoria • Eckart Klein, University of Potsdam • Kalliopi Koufa, University of Thessaloniki • Makau Mutua, State University of New York at Buff alo • Martin Nettesheim, University of Tübingen; University of California at Berkeley • Thomas Oppermann, University 0f Tübingen • Roza Pati, St. Thomas University • Herbert Petzold, Former Registrar, European Court of Human Rights • Martin Scheinin, European University Institute, Florence VOLUME 5 This series off ers pathbreaking studies in the dynamic fi eld of intercultural hu- man rights. Its primary aim is to publish volumes which off er interdisciplinary analysis of global societal problems, review past legal responses, and develop solutions which maximize access by all to the realization of universal human as- pirations. Other original studies in the fi eld of human rights are also considered for inclusion. The titles published in this series are listed at Brill.com/sihr Privacy in the 21st Century By Alexandra Rengel LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rengel, Alexandra, author. Privacy in the 21st century / By Alexandra Rengel. p. cm. -- (Studies in intercultural human rights) Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-19112-9 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-19219-5 (e-book) 1. Privacy, Right of. 2. International law. I. Title. II. Title: Privacy in the twenty-first century. K3263.R46 2013 342.08’58--dc23 2013037396 issn 1876-9861 isbn 978-90-04-19112-9 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-19219-5 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • Searching for Privacy in a Mixed Jurisdiction

    Searching for Privacy in a Mixed Jurisdiction

    Searching for Privacy in a Mixed Jurisdiction Hector L. MacQueen* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 73 II. PROTECTING PRIVACY IN SCOTS LAW TO 2000 .................................. 74 III. THE IMPACT OF DOMESTICATED HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ..................... 77 IV. SCOTS LAW: MAKING CHOICES......................................................... 83 A. Breach of Confidence............................................................... 84 B. The Actio Iniuriarum ................................................................ 88 V. ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS................................................................. 94 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 97 I. INTRODUCTION Reviewing A History of Private Law in Scotland in the Tulane Law Review in 2004, Shael Herman explained how the collection (published in 2000) left him with an impression of the “eclectic, open-textured character of Scots legal evolution”, even if sometimes he had a “a sense of having toured a juridical Australia or Galapagos Islands inhabited by exotic flora and fauna not found elsewhere”.1 He noted the complexity of the relationship between Scots and English law, and observed: To be sure, between Scotland and England there are striking political and cultural commonalities too numerous to detail. It could hardly be otherwise for two island nations that share a language, a currency, and a border. Yet, as the collection under review shows,
  • Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet

    Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet

    Research Collection Monograph ON/OFF: Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Author(s): Genner, Sarah Publication Date: 2017 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010805600 Originally published in: http://doi.org/10.3218/3800-2 Rights / License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library ON | OFF Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Sarah Genner This work was accepted as a PhD thesis by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Zurich in the spring semester 2016 on the recommendation of the Doctoral Committee: Prof. Dr. Daniel Sü ss (main supervisor, University of Zurich, Switzerland) and Prof. Dr. Urs Gasser (Harvard University, USA). Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Bibliographic Information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. This work is licensed under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Cover photo: fl ickr.com/photos/zuerichs-strassen © 2017, vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich ISBN 978-3-7281-3799-9 (Print) ISBN 978-3-7281-3800-2 (Open Access) DOI 10.3218/3800-2 www.vdf.ethz.ch [email protected] Table of Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................................
  • Right of Privacy and Rights of the Personality

    Right of Privacy and Rights of the Personality

    AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Gomparativae VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY Working paper prepared for the Nordic Conferen.ee on privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm M ay 1967 BY STIG STRÜMHOLM STOCKHOLM P. A. NORSTEDT & SÜNERS FÜRLAG ACTA Institut! Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Oomparativae AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Comjmrativae Edidit ÂKE MALMSTROM VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY (Working Paper prepared for the Nordic Conférence on Privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm May 1967) By STIG STRÜMHOLM S T O C K H O L M P. A. N O RSTEDT & S ONE R S FÜRLAG © P. A. Norstedt & Sôners fôrlag 1967 Boktryckeri AB Thule, Stockholm 1967 PREFACE One of the author’s most eminent teachers in private law in the Uppsala Faculty of Law once claimed that an action in tort ought to lie against those légal writers who take up a subject to treat it broadly enough to deter others from writing about it but not deeply enough to give any final answers to the questions discussed. Were the law so severe, the present author would undoubtedly have to face a lawsuit for venturing to publish this short study on a topic which demands lengthy and careful considération on almost every point and which has already given rise to an extensive body of case law and of légal writing. This préfacé can be considered as the au­ thor’s plaidoyer in that action, fortunately imaginary. The present study was prepared at the request, and with the most active personal and material support, of the International Commis­ sion of Jurists as a working paper for the Nordic Conférence of Jurists, organized by the Commission in Stockholm in May, 1967.
  • Lord Neuberger at the UK Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists' Lecture

    Lord Neuberger at the UK Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists' Lecture

    Lord Neuberger at the UK Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists' Lecture Privacy in the 21st Century 28 November 2012 (1) Introduction1 1. Good evening. It is a pleasure to have been asked to give tonight’s lecture. Privacy is a subject which seems to be forever topical. It excites (in both senses of the word) public discussion, while demanding considered reflection. And it raises many difficult and, often, controversial questions. Is privacy a value which society should protect? If so, to what extent? Is protection of privacy a fetter on freedom of expression? If so, can and should a balance be struck between them? And if so, what type of balance? Should, for instance, freedom of expression always trump privacy, as it is sometimes suggested is the position in the United States? A suggestion, I may add, which ignores a variety of US statutes and constitutional provisions which protect certain aspects of privacy to varying degrees, subject to the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and expression2. 2. And is privacy a value which is, on deeper analysis, not inimical to or a fetter on freedom of expression: is it actually a necessary and vital aspect of 1 I wish to thank John Sorabji for all his help in preparing this lecture. 2 For a discussion see D. Anderson, The Failure of American Privacy Law, in B. Markesinis (ed), Protecting Privacy (OUP) (1999). 1 freedom of expression? Or should we maintain the straightforward and generally held view that the two are wholly distinct, indeed often in conflict? 3.
  • Automated Number Plate Recognition: Data Retention and the Protection of Privacy in Public Places

    Automated Number Plate Recognition: Data Retention and the Protection of Privacy in Public Places

    Automated Number Plate Recognition: Data Retention and the Protection of Privacy in Public Places Lorna Woods University of Essex Introduction The Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) was a response to concerns about surveillance in the light of a series of cases from both European courts1 which found the challenged regimes to be inadequately specified in law and disproportionate. The IPA is not, however, a complete regime for all types of surveillance and intelligence gathering. This article considers another such area, the use of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), which raises the difficult issue of privacy in public places and which in the main lies outside the IPA. Relying on jurisprudence on the right to a private life from the European courts, this article puts forward the argument that ANPR and the retention of ANPR data constitutes an interference with an individual’s right to privacy. As well as the concerns arising from systemic retention of data and inadequate handling arrangements, this article addresses the question of whether ANPR constitutes an intrusion into locational privacy, a subset of privacy that has not been directly discussed yet in domestic legal literature. Any intrusion into privacy must be justified: that is, it must be for a legitimate purpose, in accordance with the law, and proportionate. It is argued that the current regime regarding ANPR is deficient in a number of respects when measured against these requirements, and that the domestic courts’ approach to privacy is likewise insufficient. The ANPR regime also illustrates the problematic, minimalist response of the UK to European rulings on privacy generally and state surveillance specifically.2 In failing to respect the underlying principles, any regime runs the risk of being challenged and the article concludes by recognising that risk in this context.
  • Spy Lingo — a Secret Eye

    Spy Lingo — a Secret Eye

    A Secret Eye SpyLingo A Compendium Of Terms Used In The Intelligence Trade — July 2019 — A Secret Eye . blog PUBLISHER'S NOTICE: Although the authors and publisher have made every eort to ensure that the information in this book was correct at press time, the authors and publisher do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, TEXTUAL CONTENT: Textual Content can be reproduced for all non-commercial accident, or any other cause. purposes as long as you provide attribution to the author / and original source where available. CONSUMER NOTICE: You should assume that the author of this document has an aliate relationship and/or another material connection to the providers of goods and services mentioned in this report THIRD PARTY COPYRIGHT: and may be compensated when you purchase from a To the extent that copyright subsists in a third party it provider. remains with the original owner. Content compiled and adapted by: Vincent Hardy & J-F Bouchard © Copyright 9218-0082 Qc Inc July 2019 — Spy Lingo — A Secret Eye Table Of Contents INTRODUCTION 4 ALPHA 5 Ab - Ai 5 Al - As 6 Au - Av 7 Bravo 8 Ba - Bl 8 Bl - Bre 9 Bri - Bu 10 CHARLIE 11 C3 - Can 11 Car - Chi 12 Cho - Cl 13 Cn - Com 14 Comp - Cou 15 Cov 16 Cu 17 DELTA 18 Da - De 18 De - Di 19 Di - Dru 20 Dry - Dz 21 Echo 22 Ea - Ex 22 Ey 23 FOXTROT 24 Fa - Fi 24 Fl - For 25 Fou - Fu 26 GOLF 27 Ga - Go 27 Gr - Gu 28 HOTEL 29 Ha - Hoo 29 Hou - Hv 30 INDIA 31 Ia
  • Gender Perspectives on Torture: Law and Practice

    Gender Perspectives on Torture: Law and Practice

    Gender Perspectives on Torture: Law and Practice CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & HUMANITARIAN LAW Anti-Torture Initiative Gender Perspectives on Torture: Law and Practice CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & HUMANITARIAN LAW Anti-Torture Initiative ii GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice Table of Contents � v Acknowledgements vii Preface: Macarena Sáez xi Introduction: Juan E. Méndez xv Foreword: Dubravka Šimonović 1 I. Gender-Based Violence: State Responsibility 3 The Vital Voices Justice Institute: Helping States Combat Gender-Based Violence Gigi Scoles and Anupama Selvam 19 Reparations for Sexual and Other Gender-Based Violence Carla Ferstman 33 How Non-State Torture is Gendered and Invisibilized: Canada’s Non-Compliance with the Committee Against Torture's Recommendations Jackie Jones, Jeanne Sarson, and Linda MacDonald 57 The Importance of Investigating Torture Against Women and Girls by Non-State Actors: Applicable Legal Standards from International Human Rights Law Teresa Fernández Paredes 87 II. Gender and Sexuality as the Basis for Specific Harms 89 Murdered in the Name of “Honor” Aisha K. Gill 105 Female Genital Mutilation as a Form of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment": Intersections with the Migration Context Els Leye and Ino Kehrer 123 Pregnancy and Virginity Testing in Educational Settings and the Torture and Other Ill-Treatment Framework Esther Major 139 Forced Contraception as a Means of Torture Christie J. Edwards 161 The Humanisation of Women: A Work in Progress Purna Sen 183 Gendering the Lens: Critical Reflections on Gender, Hospitality and Torture Mauro Cabral Grinspan and Morgan Carpenter iii iv GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice 197 III.
  • THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION on HUMAN RIGHTS and POLICING He European Convention on Human Rights and Policing Convention He European T

    THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION on HUMAN RIGHTS and POLICING He European Convention on Human Rights and Policing Convention He European T

    THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND POLICING he European Convention on Human Rights and Policing Convention he European T A handbook for police o cers Jim Murdoch and other law enforcement o cials Ralph Roche THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND POLICING A handbook for police officers and other law enforcement officials Jim Murdoch Ralph Roche Council of Europe Publishing The European Convention on Human Rights and Policing Page 2 The opinions expressed in this handbook are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of the publica- tion should be addressed to the Directorate of Communications (F-67075 Strasbourg or [email protected]). All other correspondence concerning this publication should be addressed to the Support to Human Rights National Implementation Unit, Human Rights Policy and Development Department, Directorate of Human Rights, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, Council of Europe. Photo: Cover and layout: SPDP, Council of Europe © Council of Europe, December 2013 Printed at the Council of Europe Page 3 Jim Murdoch Professor Jim Murdoch joined the School of Law at the University of Glasgow after qualifying as a solicitor. He read Law as an undergraduate at Glasgow and has an LLM from the University of California at Berkeley. He was Head of the School of Law between 1996 and 2000. He has taught at the Universities of Mainz, Freiburg, Hamburg and Paris Ouest, and was a professeur stagiaire with the Directorate of Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
  • Why Cryptography Should Not Rely on Physical Attack Complexity

    Why Cryptography Should Not Rely on Physical Attack Complexity

    Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und Informatik Institut für Softwaretechnik und Theoretische Informatik Lehrstuhl für Security in Telecommunications Why Cryptography Should Not Rely on Physical Attack Complexity vorgelegt von Juliane I. Krämer (Dipl. Math. oec.) aus Detmold von der Fakultät IV – Elektrotechnik und Informatik der Technischen Universität Berlin zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) genehmigte Dissertation Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzende: Prof. Anja Feldmann, Ph.D., Technische Universität Berlin Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Jean-Pierre Seifert, Technische Universität Berlin Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Johannes Buchmann, Technische Universität Darmstadt Gutachterin: Prof. Dr. Tanja Lange, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 23. März 2015 Berlin 2015 D83 Ich versichere an Eides statt, dass ich diese Dissertation selbständig verfasst und nur die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Datum Für meine Eltern iii/x Zusammenfassung Seitdem Mitte der Neunziger Jahre die ersten Seitenkanal- und Fehlerangriffe auf kryptographische Technologien vorgestellt wurden, werden kontinuierlich neue Mög- lichkeiten physikalischer Angriffe erforscht. Der Gefahr, die von diesen Angriffen ausgeht, wird begegnet, indem auf bekannte Angriffe reagiert wird und Gegenmaß- nahmen zum Schutz vor ihnen implementiert werden. Bei physikalischen Angriffen, die zwar prinzipiell bekannt sind, jedoch noch nicht praktisch umgesetzt wurden, verhält es sich hingegen anders. Angriffe,