Posted: Aug 19, 2013 1:02 pm
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Frederico, I apologise if I missed it, but what is your view on the issue?
I must thank you for showing such a complimentary interest in my opinion on such a complex issue. Actually, to date, I have not yet given it. The reason being I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, as with other media, total freedom of expression is unacceptable since it would open the doors to all kind of abuses. On the other hand, giving governments surveillance and censorship powers over the Net may have devastating effects on the global capacity of exchanging ideas and informations Internauts presently enjoy.
Actually, my feelings are well represented in an article published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and titled "Internet Surveillance and Free Speech: the United Nations Makes the Connection." I quote :
Frank La Rue, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion delivered this week a landmark report on state surveillance and freedom of expression which emphasizes that Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that potentially interferes with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy and threatens the foundations of a democratic society. [Therefore]
Legislation must stipulate that State surveillance of communications must only occur under the most exceptional circumstances and exclusively under the supervision of an independent judicial authority.
La Rue recommends that legal frameworks be established to ensure that communication surveillance measures:
* Are prescribed by law, meeting a standard of clarity and precision that is sufficient to ensure that individuals have advance notice of and can foresee their application,
*Are strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim,
*Adhere to the principle of proportionality, and are not employed when less invasive techniques are available which have not yet been exhausted.