Privacy, surveillance, and the proportionality principle: The need for a method of assessing privacy implications of technologies used for surveillance

References

• Arai-Takahashi, Y. 2002. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerpen: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• A report on the Surveillance Society for the Information Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network, September 2006. Accessed June 17, 2015. http://www.surveillance-studies.net/?page_id=3
   Google Scholar
• Article 29 Working Party Opinion on a PIA framework proposed for the smart electricity meters. Accessed June 17, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2013/wp205_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barak, A. 2012. Proportionality – Constitutional Rights and their Limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borton, D. A. 2013. “An Implantable Wireless Neural Interface for Recording Cortical Circuit Dynamics in Moving Primates.” Journal of Neural Engineering 10 (2). doi:10.1088/1741-2560/10/2/026010.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, R. 2006. What's ‘Privacy’? Accessed June 17, 2015. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Privacy.html
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, R. 2009. “Privacy Impact Assessment: Its Origins and Development.” Computer Law and Security Review 25: 123–135. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2009.02.002
   Google Scholar
• Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. OJ L 350, 30 December 2008.
   Google Scholar
• De Hert, P. 2005. “Balancing Security and Liberty within the European Human Rights Framework. A Critical Reading of the Court's Case Law in the Light of Surveillance and Criminal Law Enforcement Strategies After 9/11.” Utrecht Law Review 1 (1): 68–96. doi: 10.18352/ulr.4
   Google Scholar
• De Hert, P. 2012. “A Human Rights Perspective on Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment.” In Privacy Impact Assessment, edited by Wright and De Hert, 33–76. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23 November 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Eissen, M. 1993. “The Proportionality Principle in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” In The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, edited by R. St. J. Macdonald, F. Matscher, and H. Petzold, 125–137. Alphen aan Den Rijn: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Harbo, T. 2010. “The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law.” European Law Journal 16 (2): 158–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00502.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himma, K. E. 2007. “Privacy vs. Security: Why Privacy is not an Absolute Value or Right.” San Diego Law Review 44: 859–922.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, L. 1999. “The Influence of the European Principle of Proportionality Upon UK Law.” In The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, edited by E. Ellis, 107–115. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Iachello, G., and G. D. Abowd. 2005. Privacy and Proportionality: Adapting Legal Evaluation Techniques to Inform Design in Ubiquitous Computing, CHI 2005. Accessed June 15. http://sociotech.pbworks.com/f/Iachello-Privacy_and_Proportionality-ACM.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, F. G. 1999. “Recent Development in the Proportionality Principle in European Community Law.” In The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, edited by E. Ellis, 1–21. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Jans, J. H., R. de Lange, S. Prechal, and R. Widdershoven. 2007. Europeanisation of Public Law. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kleining, P., P. Mameli, S. Miller, D. Salane, and A. Schwartz. 2011. Security and Privacy: Global Standards for Ethical Identity Management in Contemporary Liberal Democratic States. Canberra: ANU E Press.
   Google Scholar
• Le Grand, G., and E. Barrau. 2012. “Prior Checking, a Forerunner to Privacy Impact Assessments.” In Privacy Impact Assessment, edited by Wright and De Hert, Dordrecht: Springer, 97–116.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, G. T. 1998. “Ethics for the New Surveillance.” The information society: An International Journal 14 (3): 171–185. doi: 10.1080/019722498128809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marx, G. T. 2002. “What is New About ‘New Surveillance’? Classifying for Change and Continuity.” Surveillance and Society 1 (1): 9–29.
   Google Scholar
• McBride, J. 1999. “Proportionality and the European Court of Human Rights.” In The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, edited by E. Ellis, 23–36. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• McCullagh, D., and A. Broache. 2006. FBI Taps Cell Phone Mic as Eavesdropping Tool, CNet News. Accessed June 16, 2015. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html
   Google Scholar
• Mifsud Bonnici, J. P. 2013. “Exploring the Non-Absolute Nature of the Right to Data Protection.” International Review of Law, Computer and Technology 28 (2): 131–143. doi: 10.1080/13600869.2013.801590
   Google Scholar
• Milaj, J. 2015. “Invalidation of the Data Retention Directive – Extending the Proportionality Test.” The Computer Law and Security Review 31 (5). doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2015.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitsilegas, V. 2015. “The Transformation of Privacy in an Era of Pre-emptive Surveillance.” Tilburg Law Review 20: 35–57. doi: 10.1163/22112596-02001006
   Google Scholar
• Mobbs, P. 2003. Privacy and Surveillance: How and When Organisations and the State Can Monitor Your Actions, GreenNet CSIR, no. 3. Accessed June 17, 2015. http://www.internetrights.org.uk/briefings/irtb05-rev1-draft.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the movement of such data, Brussels, 25.1.2012, COM(2012) 10 final, 2012/0010 (COD)
   Google Scholar
• Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, Brussels, 25.1.2012, COM(2012) 11 final, 2012/0011 (COD)
   Google Scholar
• Raab, C. D., and D. Wright. 2012. “Surveillance: Extending the Limits of Privacy Impact Assessment.” In Privacy Impact Assessment, edited by Wright and De Hert, 363–383. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, N. 2003. “Policing, Privacy and Proportionality.” European Human Rights Law Review, Supp (Special issue: privacy 2003), 86–100.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, N. 2011. “A Conceptual Legal Framework for Privacy, Accountability and Transparency in Visual Surveillance Systems.” Surveillance and Society 8 (4): 455–470.
   Google Scholar
• Thommesen, J., and H. B. Andersen. 2009. Privacy Implications of Surveillance Systems. Accessed May 6, 2013. http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:56150/datastreams/file_4010841/content
   Google Scholar
• Tridimas, T. 1999. “Proportionality in European Community Law: Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny.” In The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, edited by E. Ellis, 65–84. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Troncoso Reigada, A. 2012. “The Principle of Proportionality and the Fundamental Right to Personal Data Protection: The Biometric Data Processing.” Lex Electronica 17 (2): 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Van Gerven, W. 1999. “The Effect of Proportionality on the Actions of Member States of the European Community: National Viewpoints from Continental Europe.” In The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, edited by E. Ellis, 37–63. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Waters, N. 2012. “Privacy Impact Assessment – Great Potential Not Often Realized.” In Privacy Impact Assessment, edited by Wright and De Hert, 149–160. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D. 2012. “The State of Art in Privacy Impact Assessment.” Computer Law and Security Review 28: 54–61. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2011.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D., and P. De Hert. 2012. “Introduction to Privacy Impact Assessment.” In Privacy Impact Assessment, edited by Wright and De Hert, 3–32. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D., M. Friedewald, S. Gutwirth, M. Langheinrich, E. Mordini, R. Bellanova, P. de Hert, K. Wadhwa, D. Bigo. 2010. “Sorting Out Smart Surveillance.” Computer law & Security Review 26: 343–354. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2010.05.007
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D., I. Kroener, M. Lagazio, M. Friedewald, D. Hallinan, M. Langheinrich, R. Gellert, S. Gutwirth. 2014. SAPIENT Deliverable 4.4: A Guide to Surveillance Impact Assessment – How to Identify and Prioritise Risks Arising from Surveillance Systems. Accessed June 11, 2015. http://www.sapientproject.eu/D4.4%20-%20SIA%20Manual%20(submitted%2001%20August%202014).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D., Finn, R., and R. Rodrigues. 2013. “A Comparative Analysis of Privacy Impact Assessment in Six Countries.” Journal of Contemporary European Research 9 (1): 160–180.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D., and C. D. Raab. 2012. “Constructing a Surveillance Impact Assessment.” Computer Law and Security Review 28: 613–626. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D., and C. D. Raab. 2014. “Privacy Principles, Risks and Harms.” International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 28 (3): 277–298. doi: 10.1080/13600869.2014.913874
   Google Scholar
• Young, S. 2013. A Wireless Brain-Computer Interface. Accessed March 30, 2015. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512161/a-wireless-brain-computer-interface/
   Google Scholar
• Case law from the European Court of Human Rights
   Google Scholar
• Airey v. Ireland, ECHR application no. 6289/73, 9 October 1979
   Google Scholar
• Cossey v. The United Kingdom, ECHR application no. 10843/84, 27 September 1990
   Google Scholar
• Gaskin v. The United Kingdom, ECHR application no. 10454/83, 7 July 1989
   Google Scholar
• Handyside v. The United Kingdom, ECHR application no. 5493/72, 7 December 1976
   Google Scholar
• Klass v. Germany, ECHR application no. 5029/71, 6 September 1978
   Google Scholar
• Kruslin v. France, ECHR application no. 11801/85, 24 April 1990
   Google Scholar
• Malone v. The United Kingdom, ECHR application no. 8691/79, 2 August 1984
   Google Scholar
• Marckx v. Belgium, ECHR application no. 6833/74, 13 June 1979
   Google Scholar
• Peck v. The United Kingdom, ECHR application no. 44647/98, 28 January 2003
   Google Scholar
• Rees v. The United Kingdom, ECHR application no. 9532/81, 17 October 1986
   Google Scholar
• Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, ECHR application no. 6538/74, 26 April 1979
   Google Scholar
• Uzun v. Germany, ECHR application no. 35623/05, 2 September 2010
   Google Scholar
• Weber and Saravia v. Germany, ECHR application no. 54934/00, 29 June 2006
   Google Scholar
• X & Y v. The Netherlands, ECHR application no. 8978/80, 26 March 1985
   Google Scholar
• Case law from the Court of Justice of the EU
   Google Scholar
• C-265/87 Schraeder HS Kraftfutter GmbH & Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Gronau [1989] ECR 2237
   Google Scholar
• C-84/94 United Kingdom v. Council [1996] ECR I-5755
   Google Scholar
• Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Getreide [1970] ECR1125
   Google Scholar
• Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen [2010] ECR I-11063
   Google Scholar
• Joint cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and others [2014] nyr
   Google Scholar
• Opinion of AG Maduro in Case 524/06 Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Google Scholar