General Assembly Distr.: General 1 February 2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Downloads (‘High-Volume, Low-Value Traffic’).43 Reports with Regard to UK and German Programmes Also Cite the Use of ‘Selectors’ (E.G
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR MASS SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONAL DATA IN EU MEMBER STATES AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH EU LAW STUDY Abstract In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillance practices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The study argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute key standards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. -
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
United States Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs International Narcotics Control Strategy Report Volume II Money Laundering and Financial Crimes March 2014 INCSR 2014 Volume II Common Abbreviations Table of Contents Volume II Common Abbreviations .................................................................................................... iii Legislative Basis for the INCSR ................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 Bilateral Activities ......................................................................................................... 4 Training and Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................... 4 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ................................................. 5 Department of Homeland Security .............................................................................. 6 Customs and Border Protection ................................................................................................................ 6 Homeland Security Investigations ............................................................................................................ 6 Department of Justice .................................................................................................. 8 Drug Enforcement -
Surveillance by Intelligence Services: Services: Intelligence by Surveillance
FREEDOMS FRA Surveillance by intelligence services – Volume II: field perspectives and legal update II: field perspectives – Volume services intelligence by Surveillance Surveillance by intelligence services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU Volume II: field perspectives and legal update This report addresses matters related to the respect for private and family life (Article 7), the protection of personal data (Article 8) and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47) falling under Titles II ‘Freedoms’ and VI ‘Justice’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). Photo (cover & inside): © Shutterstock More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 FRA – print: ISBN 978-92-9491-766-9 doi:10.2811/15232 TK-04-17-696-EN-C FRA – web: ISBN 978-92-9491-765-2 doi:10.2811/792946 TK-04-17-696-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Printed by Imprimerie Centrale in Luxembourg Neither the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights nor any person acting on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information. -
National Programmes for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data in Eu Member States and Their Compatibility with Eu Law
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR MASS SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONAL DATA IN EU MEMBER STATES AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH EU LAW STUDY Abstract In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillance practices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The study argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute key standards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. -
Nationale Programme Zur Massenüberwachung Personenbezogener Daten in Den Eu-Mitgliedstaaten Und Ihre Vereinbarkeit Mit Dem Eu-Recht
GENERALDIREKTION INTERNE POLITIKBEREICHE FACHABTEILUNG C: BÜRGERRECHTE UND KONSTITUTIONELLE ANGELEGENHEITEN BÜRGERLICHE FREIHEITEN, JUSTIZ UND INNERES NATIONALE PROGRAMME ZUR MASSENÜBERWACHUNG PERSONENBEZOGENER DATEN IN DEN EU-MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND IHRE VEREINBARKEIT MIT DEM EU-RECHT STUDIE Abriss Nach den Enthüllungen rund um PRISM und andere US-Überwachungsprogramme erfolgt mit der vorliegenden Studie eine Bewertung der Praxis der Überwachung in großem Ausmaß seitens einer Auswahl von EU-Mitgliedstaaten: Vereinigtes Königreich, Schweden, Frankreich, Deutschland und die Niederlande. Angesichts des großen Ausmaßes der untersuchten Überwachungspraxis muss man davon ausgehen, dass es sich im Vergleich zum traditionellen Sammeln geheimdienstlicher Daten um eine grundlegende Neuordnung der Überwachungspraxis handelt. Deshalb wird in der Studie die Ansicht vertreten, dass eine Analyse der europäischen Überwachungsprogramme nicht auf die Frage der Balance zwischen Datenschutz und nationaler Sicherheit beschränkt bleiben darf, sondern in den größeren Zusammenhang der kollektiven Freiheitsrechte und der Demokratie gestellt werden muss. Zu den Ergebnissen der Studie gehört, dass in vier von fünf der EU-Mitgliedstaaten, die für eine nähere Untersuchung ausgewählt worden sind, in irgendeiner Form ein Abfangen und Überwachen von Kommunikationsdaten in großem Ausmaß erfolgt. Ferner werden in der Studie Parallelen und Unterschiede zwischen diesen Programmen und den seitens der NSA durchgeführten Operationen ermittelt. Die Verfasser der Studie gelangen -
Activiteitenverslag 2013.Indb
RAPPORT D’ACTIVITÉS 2013 ACTIVITEITENVERSLAG 2013 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ? est une série de publications qui a pour objectif de stimuler une discussion approfondie quant au fonctionnement, aux compétences et au contrôle des services de renseignement et de sécurité et du travail de renseignement. Cette série reprend notamment des études scientifi ques, les rapports d’activités du Comité permanent R et des rapports de colloques. Rédaction Comité permanent de contrôle des services de renseignements et de sécurité, rue de Louvain 48, boîte 4 à 1000 Bruxelles (02 286 29 88). Déjà parus dans cette série 1) D. Van Daele, en B. Vangeebergen, Inlichtingendiensten en strafprocedure in Nederland, Duitsland en Frankrijk, 2006, 166 p. 2) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2006, 2007, 147 p. 3) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2007, 2008, 87 p. 4) Belgian Standing Committee I (ed.), All Source Th reat Assessments in the Fight against Terrorism – Fusion Centres throughout Europe, 2010, 220 p. 5) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2008, 2009, 131 p. 6) W. Van Laethem, D. Van Daele en B. Vangeebergen (eds.), De Wet op de bijzondere inlichtingenmethoden, 2010, 298 p. 7) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2009, 2010, 127 p. 8) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2010, 2011, 119 p. 9) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2011, 2012, 134 p. 10) W. Van Laethem et J. Vanderborght, Regards sur le contrôle. Vingt ans de contrôle démocratique sur les services de renseignement, 2013, 565 p. 11) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2012, 2013, 127 p. -
Echelon/Frenchelon : Mythes Et Réalités
Echelon/Frenchelon : mythes et réalités Enjeux politiques et stratégiques des systèmes de surveillance Conférence de Jean Marc Manach, le 14 avril 2005 à l©IEP de Rennes à l©invitation de l©association YSEGORIA Introduction Le programme anglo-saxon d©écoute des télécommunications, surnommé « Echelon », qui fait de temps à autres les choux gras d©Hollywood et de certains jeux vidéos, et constitue l©un des sujets de prédilection des adeptes des « théories de la conspiration », est un « secret défense » plus ou moins battu en brèche par certains journalistes et défenseurs des droits de l©homme et de la vie privée. « Frenchelon », son (relatif) équivalent français (et partiellement européen), est bien moins connu : révélée en 1998, son existence n©a jamais entraînée qu©une poignée d©articles de quelques journalistes (un anglais, cinq français), quand bien même plusieurs rapports parlementaires, et communiqués de presse du ministère de la Défense, en parlent à mots couverts. Dans les deux cas, ils ne sont que la partie emergée d©un iceberg dont l©ampleur croît à mesure que se développe la société de l©information; la question reste en effet de savoir ce qui, de l©espionnage militaire (et politique, et industriel), ou de la surveillance administrative (et policière, et domestique), constitue la plus grande menace en termes de libertés, et de démocratie. Chronique d©une médiatisation 1976 : un étudiant écossais en physique de 24 ans, Duncan Campbell, est arrêté par le contre- espionnage britannique pour avoir publié dans un journal (de gauche) une enquête sur une installation gouvernementale de surveillance électronique. S©ensuivent 18 mois de « tracasseries judiciaires », qui ne font que conforter Campbell dans son désir d©enquêter sur cette affaire. -
Siber Güvenlik Raporu
Siber Güvenlik Raporu Hazırlayanlar Ali KURTUL M. Fatih ZEYVELİ Yusuf İNCE Kadir YILDIZ Hüseyin YÜCE Faruk YAKARYILMAZ İçindekiler Tablosu SİBER DÜNYADA BİLİŞİM GÜVENLİĞİ ............................................................................................. 3 GİRİŞ .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Siber Güvenliğe Giriş .................................................................................................................... 4 SİBER GÜVENLİK KAVRAMLARI ............................................................................................................ 5 SİBER GÜVENLİK .................................................................................................................................. 5 SİBER SALDIRI ...................................................................................................................................... 5 BULUT GÜVENLİĞİ ............................................................................................................................... 5 IOT GÜVENLİĞİ .................................................................................................................................... 6 BÜYÜK VERİ / BİG DATA ...................................................................................................................... 7 KRİTİK ALTYAPI ................................................................................................................................... -
Big Data, Big Brother?
December 2015 Big data, Big Brother? How to secure Europeans’ safety and privacy By Camino Mortera-Martinez Big data, Big Brother? How to secure Europeans’ safety and privacy By Camino Mortera-Martinez Terrorism and organised crime are a serious threat to Europe, as the recent attacks in Paris show. The European Union is better placed to deal with trans-national crime and terrorists moving across borders than individual member-states. To face this growing threat, the EU needs to adopt security measures. Some of these measures (such as the use of data to trace and track how terrorists are financed, how they travel and how they communicate) have far-reaching implications for citizens’ privacy. As it tries to find more effective ways to combat terrorism at the European level, the EU has been struggling to find the right balance between privacy and security. There are two main reasons why: the EU’s institutional and legal framework for dealing with security issues is inadequate; and debates on security and privacy are distorted by Europe’s love/hate relationship with the US, which extends to American multinational companies. The European Parliament has been blocking important security legislation, and the Snowden revelations have damaged trust between Europe and America, threatening the operations of US companies in Europe. But the EU needs to protect its security and ensure that citizens’ rights are respected. The following proposals would help it to do so: The European Parliament needs to have access to confidential information, if the EU wants to overcome the current gridlock on security measures. -
Tracfin 2019
France’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) TRACFIN 2019 Annual Report CONTENTS FOREWORD 5 A FEW DEFINITIONS 6 TRACFIN’S SOURCES OF INFORMATION 9 HIGHLIGHTS OF 2019: SIGNIFICANT GROWTH 10 REPORTING ACTIVITY OF REPORTING ENTITIES 11 FINANCIAL SECTOR REPORTING ENTITIES 13 FACT SHEET 1: CREDIT INSTITUTIONS AND ISSUING INSTITUTIONS 13 FACT SHEET 2: PAYMENT INSTITUTIONS 21 FACT SHEET 3: ELECTRONIC MONEY INSTITUTIONS 22 FACT SHEET 4: MONEY CHANGERS 23 FACT SHEET 5: CROWDFUNDING INTERMEDIARIES AND INVESTMENT ADVISERS 24 FACT SHEET 6: FINANCIAL MARKET PROFESSIONALS 26 FACT SHEET 7: DIGITAL ASSET SERVICE PROVIDERS (DASPS) 26 2 FACT SHEET 8: THE INSURANCE SECTOR 29 NON-FINANCIAL SECTOR REPORTING ENTITIES 32 FACT SHEET 9: NOTARIES 32 FACT SHEET 10: REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS 33 FACT SHEET 11: BAILIFFS 38 FACT SHEET 12: COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVERS AND TRUSTEES 38 FACT SHEET 13: COMMERCIAL REGISTERED OFFICE PROVIDERS 40 FACT SHEET 14: LAWYERS 40 FACT SHEET 15: AUDITORS AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 41 FACT SHEET 16: GAMING SECTOR PROFESSIONALS 42 FACT SHEET 17: THE ARTS SECTOR 48 OFFICIAL REPORTS 51 SYSTEMATIC INFORMATION DISCLOSURES (COSIS) 53 - ANNUAL REPORT 2019 REPORT - ANNUAL TRACFIN TRACFIN’S ACTIVITY IN 2019 59 HOW INFORMATION IS PROCESSED 60 INPUTTING INFORMATION 60 ANALYSING AND REDIRECTING INFORMATION 60 ENHANCING INFORMATION THROUGH OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 60 TRACFIN’S DISCLOSURES TO ITS PARTNERS 62 COURTS 62 INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 74 TACKLING FRAUD 75 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (DGDDI) 82 COMBATING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (CFT) -
Money Laundering and Financial Crimes
United States Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs International Narcotics Control Strategy Report Volume II Money Laundering and Financial Crimes March 2015 INCSR 2015 Volume II Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Table of Contents ...................................................................................... i Common Abbreviations .......................................................................... iv Definitions ................................................................................................ vi Money Laundering and Financial Crimes ...................................... 1 Legislative Basis for the INCSR ................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Bilateral Activities ..................................................................................... 4 Training and Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................... 4 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ............................. 5 Department of Homeland Security .......................................................... 6 Customs and Border Protection ................................................................................................................ 6 Homeland Security Investigations -
From Deep State Illegality to Law of the Land: the Case of Internet Surveillance in France
From Deep State Illegality to Law of the Land: The Case of Internet Surveillance in France Félix Tréguer∗ [email protected] October 2016† Abstract Taking France as a case-study, this working paper reflects on the ongoing legalization strategies pursued by liberal states as they seek to secure the Internet surveillance programs operated by their domes- tic and foreign intelligence agencies. Following the path to legaliza- tion prior and after the Snowden disclosures of 2013, the paper shows how these leaks helped mobilize contentious groups against the extra- judicial surveillance of Internet communications, a policy area which had hitherto been overlooked by French human rights advocacy. It also points to the dilemma that post-Snowden contention created for governments. On the one hand, the disclosures helped document the growing gap between the existing legal framework and actual surveil- lance practices, exposing them to litigation and thereby reinforcing the rationale for legalization. But on the other hand, they made such a legislative reform politically risky and unpredictable. In France, pol- icymakers navigated these constraints through a cautious mix of dis- tinction strategies, silence, and securitization. After the Paris attacks of January 2015 and a hasty discussion in Parliament, they eventu- ally passed the Intelligence Act –the most extensive piece of legislation ever adopted in France to regulate secret state surveillance. The paper concludes by pointing to the paradoxical effect of post-Snowden con- tention: French law now provides for clear rules authorizing large-scale surveillance, to a degree of detail that was hard to imagine just a few years ago.