![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The right to privacy is a fundamental human right under international law. The right to privacy for an individual is the right to hide or obscure elements of their life from the wider public. In the modern age, the need for privacy is becoming increasingly difficult in light of modern communication companies which seek to make once which was considered private, public. The right to privacy has historically not been at the forefront of discussions within the international community and the United Nations. This position changed after the Edward Snowden and Cambridge Analytica revelations. The focus from the international community is on addressing not only the practices of state sponsored surveillance but also surveillance undertaken by modern communications companies. This article will focus on how the United Nations, the international community and international law aim to bring surveillance practices in line with human rights law and what privacy means in the modern digital age. The first part of the article will look at the inherent right to privacy, the second part will cover the recent developments from the United Nations and international law and the third part will look at the challenges ahead in the modern age of surveillance and digital communication.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Kristian P. Humble is a Principal Lecturer in International Law at the School of Law and Criminology, University of Greenwich, London, UK, where he is the Programme Leader for the LLB Programme. Kristian has taught undergraduate and postgraduate modules in human rights, international law and international criminal law. His research focuses on best practice in legal education, social justice, human rights and international law.
Notes
1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, GA/Res/217A.
2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171, Art. 17.
3 United Nations Human Rights Council, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, 2013, UN Doc., A/HRC/23/40.
4 Human Rights Council, UN Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, 2017, UN Doc., A/HRC/RES/34/7.
5 There are under international law two distinct control tests, one over territory and one over persons. The effective control test is based on acts of private individuals or groups controlled by the state. From Nicaragua v United States, ICJ Rep.14, (1986), 115.
6 United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, 2014, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/37, para 20.
7 The often referred to Five Eyes comprises the US National Security Agency, the UK General Communication Headquarters, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment, New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau and the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate.
8 United Nations Human Rights Commission, General Comment No 16 Article 17 (Right to Privacy), The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family Home and Correspondence and Protection of Honour and Reputation, 8 April 1988, UN Doc., HRI/GEN/Rev9.
9 Notably from the Human Rights Committee (HRC).
10 United Nations Human Rights Council, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, 2013, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/40.
11 United Nations General Assembly, 18 December 2013, Res 68/167 UN Doc., A/RES/68/167, United Nations General Assembly, 18 December 2014, Res 69/166 18, UN Doc. A/RES/69/166.
12 United Nations Human Rights Commission, General Comment No 16 Article 17 (Right to Privacy), The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family Home and Correspondence and Protection of Honour and Reputation, 8 April 1988, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/Rev9.
13 Ibid., para 10.
14 United Nations Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant, Concluding Observations in Spain, 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5, para 11.
15 Botta v Italy, ECHR, Appl. No 21439/93, (1994).
16 MK v France, ECHR, Appl. No 19522/09, (2013).
17 S and Marper v UK, ECHR, Appl. No 30542/04, (2008).
18 Bensaid v UK, ECHR, Appl. No 44599/98, (2001).
19 S and Marper v UK, ECHR, Appl. No 30542/04, (2008), para 47.
20 Botta v Italy, ECHR, Appl. No 21439/93, (1994).
21 Maximilan Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, CJEU, C-362/14, (2015).
22 PRISM is a code name for a mass surveillance program which the US National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various US based companies.
23 Maximilan Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, CJEU, C-362/14, (2015) para 92.
24 Ibid., para 94.
25 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 33 UNTS, 993.
26 See above, Article 38, (1)(b).
27 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, ICJ, Reports 3, 28, (1969).
28 Philip Alston, Human Rights Law (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 3–8.
29 Unite Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217A, (III).
30 Robert C. Post, ‘Three Concepts of Privacy’, Georgetown Law Journal 89 (2001): 2087.
31 Daniel J. Solove, ‘Conceptualizing Privacy’, California Law Review 90, no. 4 (2002): 1087.
32 Alexandra Rengel, ‘Privacy as an International Human Right and the Right to Obscurity in Cyberspace’, Groningen Journal of International Law 2, no. 2 (2014): 38.
33 T. Gerety, ‘Redefining Privacy’, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 12 (1977): 236 and William Parent, ‘Privacy Morality and the Law’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, no. 4 (1983): 323.
34 Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 330.
35 Hyman Gross, ‘The Concept of Privacy’, New York University Law Review 42, no. 1 (1967): 34–5.
36 Daniel J. Solove, Understanding Privacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009), 13.
37 Ibid., 39. Political scientist Priscilla Regan states that privacy interests are not individual interests but the interests of society. She explains that individual perceptions fail to appreciate the importance of privacy for individuals fails to recognise its importance as common, public and collective values. See Priscilla Regan, Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values and Public Policy (Chapter Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995).
38 P.B. Newell, ‘Perspectives on Privacy’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, no. 2 (1995): 88–105.
39 Priscilla Regan, Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values and Public Policy (Chapter Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995).
40 Jeffrey H. Reiman, ‘Driving to the Panopticon: A Philosophical Exploration of the Risks to Privacy Posed by the Highway Technology of the Future’, Santa Clara High Tech Law Journal 11, no. 1 (1995): 27.
41 Article 28 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.
42 General Assembly Report of the Human Rights Committee 43rd Session, 1988, A/43/40.
43 Ibid, para 3.
44 Alexandra Rengel, Privacy in the 21st Century (Leiden: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, 2013).
45 Woodrow Hartzog and Fred Strutzman, ‘The Case for Online Obscurity’, California Law Review 101 (2013): 1.
46 Ibid., 112.
47 Ibid., 113.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid., 36
50 Ibid.
51 United States v Gines-Perez, D.P.R., F Suppl. 214 (2002) 205.
52 Pietrylo v Hillstone Restaurant Group, D.N.J, WL 6085437 (2008).
53 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, March 23 1976, 999 UNTS 171, Art. 17, Art. 2(1).
54 Five Eyes comprises the US National Security Agency, the UK General Communication Headquarters, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment, New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau and the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate.
55 United Kingdom, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000, Sec., 8(4) and Investigatory Powers Act, 2016.
56 United States, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978. Sec., 1881a(a).
57 Australia, Australian Intelligence Services Act, 2001, Sec., 9.
58 Canada, Canadian National Defence Act, 1985, Sec., 273.64(1).
59 United Kingdom, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000, Sec., 8(2).
60 Ibid., Sec., 20.
61 Privacy International v GCHQ, IPT/13/92/CH (16 May 2014).
62 United Nations Human Rights Council, Concluding Observations on the Seventh Periodic Repost of the UK and Northern Ireland, 17 August 2015, UN Doc., CCPR/C/GBR/Co/7.
63 Ibid., 31
64 United Kingdom, Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, Sec. 136(3).
65 United Nations Human Rights Commission, Summary Record, 1405th Meeting, 24 April 1995, UN Doc., CCPR/C/SR 1405, para 20. United States Department, Second and Third Periodic Report of the USA to the UN Committee on Human Rights Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 21 October 2005.
66 Human Rights Watch Inc and Others v The Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Others, ALL ER, (2016) 105.
67 Ibid., 106.
68 Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 8.
69 Scarlet Kim, ‘ECHR Jurisdiction and Mass Surveillance: Scrutinising the UK Investigatory Power Tribunal’s Recent Ruling’, EJIL:Talk! (June 9, 2016).
70 United Nations Human Rights Commission, General Comment No 31 The Nature of the General Obligations Imposed on State Parties to the Covenant, 2004, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add1326, para 10.
71 Alexandre v Cuba, IACHR, Case 11.589, Report No 109/99, (1999), para 37.
72 Loizidou v Turkey, EHRR, 20, (1995), 98.
73 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo in Democratic Republic of Congo v Uganda, ICJ, (2000), 111.
74 Marko Milanovic, ‘Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age’, Harvard International Law Journal, 81 (2015):113.
75 Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, Communications No 52, UN Doc., CCPR/C13/D/52/1979, (1979).
76 Ibid., para 10.
77 Peter Margulies, ‘The NSA in the Global Perspective: Surveillance, Human Rights and International Counterterrorism’, Fordham Law Review 82 (2014): 2137.
78 Ibid., 2150.
79 Ibid.
80 Carly Nyst, ‘Interface Based Jurisdiction Over Violations of the Right to Privacy’, EJIL:Talk! (November 16, 2013).
81 Ibid., 48.
82 Ibid., 126.
83 Ibid., 50.
84 Ibid., 129.
85 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ‘Mass Surveillance’, Doc. 13734, 2015, para. 30–33.
86 Allowed to spy on British nationals only with reasonable suspicion.
87 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ‘Mass Surveillance’, para. 53.
88 The Washington Post, ‘NSA Slides Explain the PRSIM Data Collection Program’, The Washington Post, June 6, 2013.
89 Glen Greenwald, ‘NSA Taps into Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine Data’, The Guardian, June 6, 2013.
90 Stepeh Ovide, ‘US Officials Releases Details of PRISM Program’, Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2013.
91 Ibid., 53.
92 Peter Margulies, ‘The NSA in the Global Perspective: Surveillance, Human Rights and International Counterterrorism’, Fordham Law Review 82 (2014): 2139.
93 Ibid., 2157.
94 Jordan J. Paust, ‘Can You Hear Me Now? Private Communications, National Security and the Human Rights Disconnect’, Chicago Journal of International Law 15, no. 2 (2015): 612.
95 Jaloud v Netherlands, ECHR, Appl. No 47708/08, (2014).
96 Ibid.
97 United Nations Human Rights Council, Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of the USA, April 23, 2014, CCRP/C/USA/CO/4, para. 22.
98 Ibid., para 34.
99 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, 2014, UN Doc. A/69/397, para. 41.
100 United Nations General Assembly, Res 68/167, 18 December 2013.
101 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 16, 22nd session, 21 UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, (1988) 21.
102 Associated Foreign Press, ‘Canada Spy Agency Stops Sharing Intelligence with International Partners’, The Guardian, January 28, 2016.
103 The Guardian, ‘German court backs murder’s right to be forgotten online’, The Guardian, November 27, 2019.
104 Ibid.
105 The Special Rapporteur is mandated by Human Rights Council Resolution 28/16 to submit an annual report to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly on information, trends, obstacles and violations related to the right to privacy.
106 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, 2019, Unedited Version, A/HRC/40/63.
107 Ibid., para. 4.
108 Ibid., para. 5.
109 Ibid., para. 6.
110 Ibid., para. 8.
111 Peter Sieghart, Privacy and Computers (London: Latimer, 1976), 24.
112 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, 2019, Unedited Version, A/HRC/40/63, para. 9.
113 Joseph Cannataci, Privacy & Data Protection Law (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1987), 60.
114 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, 2019, Unedited Version, A/HRC/40/63, para. 10.
115 Ibid., para. 2.
116 Ibid., para. 17.
117 Ibid., para. 46, 47 and 48.
118 Convention 108+ Article 11 is a Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data CETS No 108.
119 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, 2019, Unedited Version, A/HRC/40/63, para. 102, 103 and 108.
120 There were a number of individuals who helped expose Cambridge Analytica; Carole Cadwalladr (journalist), Christopher Wylie (a former employee of Cambridge Analytica), Shahmir Sanni (a volunteer with the Vote Leave Campaign in the UK Brexit Referendum), and Professor David Carrol, a Professor, who has engaged in a lengthy battle to obtain his data from Cambridge Analytica.
121 The company was partly owned Robert Mercer, an American hedge-fund manager who supports manly conservative political causes. The CEO was Alexander Nix. Nix has suggested has that Cambridge Analytica was involved in forty four US political races in 2014. In 2016, Cambridge Analytica worked for Donald Trump's presidential campaign as well as for Leave.EU. CA's role in those campaigns has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing criminal investigations in both UK and US. See David Hakim, ‘Data Firm Says Secret Sauce Aided Trump; Many Scoff’, The New York Times, October 28, 2018. Also see Carol Cadwalladr, ‘Watchdog to launch inquiry into misuse of data in politics, The Guardian, October 29, 2019.
122 Privacy International, ‘Guide to International Law and Surveillance’, Privacy International, https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/993/guide-international-law-and-surveillance-20 (accessed November 8, 2019).
123 Editorial, ‘Who is Cambridge Analytica and What Did It Do?’, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica-factbox/factbox-who-is-cambridge-analytica-and-what-did-it-do-idUSKBN1GW07F (accessed November 10, 2019).
124 Alex Hern, ‘How to Check Whether Facebook Shared Your Data with Cambridge Analytica’, The Guardian, April 10, 2018.
125 Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell and Thore Graepel, ‘Private Traits and Attributes are Predictable from Digital Records of Human Behavior’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (2013): 5805.
126 Harry Davies, ‘Ted Cruz Using Firm that Harvested Data on Millions of Unwitting Facebook Users’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/senator-ted-cruz-president-campaign-facebook-user-data (accessed October 30, 2019).
127 Michael Biesecker and Julie Bykowicz, ‘Cruz App Data Collection Helps Campaign Read Minds of Voters’, AP News, https://apnews.com/2db0fc93cf664a63909e26e708e91c67/cruz-app-data-collection-helps-campaign-read-minds-voters (accessed October 30, 2019).
128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.
130 Jina Moore, ‘Cambridge Analytica Had Role in Kenyan Election Too’, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/world/africa/kenya-cambridge-analytica-election.html (accessed November 3, 2019).
131 Channel 4 News, ‘Data, Democracy and Dirty Tricks’, Channel 4 News, https://www.channel4.com/news/data-democracy-and-dirty-tricks-cambridge-analytica-uncovered-investigation-expose (accessed November 10, 2019).
132 The Guardian, ‘Cambridge Analytica Files’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/cambridge-analytica-files (accessed November 10, 2019).
133 Carole Cadwalladr, ‘The Great British Brexit Robbery How Our Democracy was Hijacked’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy (accessed November 15, 2019).
134 Joe Murphy, ‘Cambridge Analytica Bragged: We Have Vast Data for Brexit Vote’, London Evening Standard, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cambridge-analytica-bragged-we-have-vast-data-for-brexit-vote-a3797441.html (accessed November 13, 2019).
135 Carole Cadwalladr, ‘I Made Steve Bannon’s Psychological Warfare Tool: Meet the Data War Whistleblower’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump (accessed January 18, 2020).
136 Kenneth Vogel, ‘Cruz Partners with Donor's “Psychographic” Firm’, Politico, https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-donor-for-data-119813 (accessed November 5, 2019).
137 Carole Cadwalladr, ‘I Made Steve Bannon’s Psychological Warfare Tool: Meet the Data War Whistleblower’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump (accessed December 18, 2019).
138 Massimo Calabresi, ‘Inside Russia's Social Media War on America’, Time, https://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/ (accessed November 18, 2019).
139 Ibid.
140 The Great Hack. Directed by Jehane Noujaim and Karim Amer. United States: Netflix.
141 Privacy International, ‘Cambridge Analytica, GDPR 1 Year on a Lot of Words and Some Action’, Privacy International, https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/2857/cambridge-analytica-gdpr-1-year-lot-words-and-some-action (accessed 3 November 2019).
142 Zeynep Tufekci, ‘Zukerberg’s So Called Shift Towards Privacy’, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/zuckerberg-privacy-facebook.html (accessed November 3, 2019).
143 Roger McNamee, ‘Mark Zuckerberg Says He Wants to Fix the Internet. Don't Take Him Seriously’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/02/mark-zuckerberg-fix-the-internet (accessed January 26, 2020).
144 EU Directive 95/46.
145 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree and Christopher Kuner, ‘The Growing Importance of Data Protection in Public International Law’, EJIL: Talk, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-growing-importance-of-data-protection-in-public-international-law/ (accessed March 6, 2020).
146 Ibid.
147 Woodrow Hartzog and Fred Strutzman, ‘The Case for Online Obscurity’, California Law Review 101 (2013): 1.
148 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree and Christopher Kuner, ‘The Growing Importance of Data Protection in Public International Law’, EJIL: Talk, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-growing-importance-of-data-protection-in-public-international-law/ (accessed March 6, 2020).
149 Martin Scheinin, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism’, UN Human Rights Council (28 October 2009): A-HRC-13-37.