This paper critically assesses the compatibility of content recognition and filtering technology or so-called notice and staydown approach with the right of social network platforms and users to a fair trial, privacy and freedom of expression under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Article 13 of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on Copyright, the case-law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Court and academic literature. It argues that the adoption of content recognition and filtering technology could pose a threat to social network platforms and user human rights. It considers the compliance of 'notice and staydown' with the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether a 'notice and staydown' approach is, firstly, 'in accordance with the law', secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims included in Article 8(2) and 10(2) ECHR and thirdly, is 'necessary' and 'proportionate'. It concludes that 'notice and staydown' could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR test as well as the ECtHR principle of equality of arms, thereby violating the rights of social network platforms and users under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.
Antecedentes: Las enfermedades cardiovasculares son la principal causa mundial de mortalidad y México no es la excepción. Los datos epidemiológicos obtenidos en 1990 mostraron que los padecimientos cardiovasculares representaron el 19.8% de todas las causas de muerte en nuestro país; esta cifra se incrementó de manera significativa a un 25.5% para 2015. Diversas encuestas nacionales sugieren que más del 60% de la población adulta tiene al menos un factor de riesgo para padecer enfermedades cardiovasculares (obesidad o sobrepeso, hipertensión, tabaquismo, diabetes, dislipidemias). Por otro lado,
This is the accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Review of Law on 26 April 2016. Subject to embargo. Embargo end date: 26 October 2018. The version of record [Romero-Moreno, F. (2016) 'The Digital Economy Act 2010: subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR', International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 30(3): 229-247, first published on line April 26, 2016] is available online via doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2016.1176320This paper critically assesses the compatibility of s3 Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Ofcom???s Initial Obligations and two UK cases, namely: British Telecommunications Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills,1 and R (British Telecommunications plc and TalkTalk Telecom Group plc) v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others.2 It argues that the implementation of this obligation allows directed surveillance of subscribers??? activities without legal authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It also analyses compliance with the Strasbourg Court???s three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether s3 of the DEA is, firstly, ???in accordance with the law???; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is ???necessary??? and ???proportionate???. It concludes that unless the implementation of s3 of the DEA required the involvement of State authorities and was specifically targeted at serious, commercial scale online copyright infringement cases it could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR???s test, thereby violating subscribers??? Article 8 ECHR rights
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.