Surveillance and Democracy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Surveillance and Democracy - Essay ExampleAs seen in s8(2) at that place has been built into the statute several exceptions which leaves the law somewhat open to interpretation. Firstly, as held in Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14, the right to respect for semiprivate and family life, home and correspondence is not to be infringed upon unless there is statute to the contrary to which the citizens are aware. As stated in Taylor (2002) the EU court has been especially mean with regard to personal communications (see Kopp v Switzerland (1999) 27 EHRR 91). In this case, the court held that state misdemeanour upon private communications of the citizens displayed a serious breach against their right to a private life.The EU Convention of homo Rights has maintained that if there is to be a breach of citizens right to private life it must be for a specific legal purpose, that is to say supported by legal statute. The last area to hire in spite of appearance the framework of the EU Convent ion of Human Rights is to ascertain the balance of individual citizens rights against that of the greater good. In short, according to Taylor (2002) this balance requires a test of proportions, essentially measuring the pros and cons. In short, it is imperative that the state within the legal framework on a case by case basis weigh the facts and reconcile if the great good will outweigh the individual infringement upon an individual citizen. As stated antecedent the EU as base in the Human Rights Act and as discussed previous has upheld that any infringement must be legitimized by state statute. This was upheld with regard to the tapping of personal phones in the UK. In Malone v metropolitan Police Commissioner No.2 1979 2 WLR 700 the court held that the police had employ a wiretap to fuck off information regarding the suspects cruel activity. As the UK had no statute on the books legitimizing the wiretap and therefore infringement on the defendants right to solitude with res pect to personal communications the conviction was overturned upon appeal to the EU. Even though there had been front precedent for wiretapping as established by the government without a binding legal framework, the EU put up the legitimate exception rule had not been met.In an attempt to reactivity the lack of statute the UK passed the Interception of communication theory Act 1985. However this act provide ineffective in providing the legal framework necessary to obtain little more than wiretaps for public telephones. In case and after case specific modes of communication were found to be exceptions to this law (i.e. cordless telephones, private networks etc). The statute was tested even further when the police used a listening device to obtain a defense and eventual conviction of a heroine smuggler. On appeal within the UK in (R v Khan 1996 3 WLR 162, the court found that even if the confession were to be determined later to be in breach of s(8) the court could not justify ove rturning the verdict.The defendant did appeal to the EU and the court found t