First report: Important developments and substantive issues, March-July 2016 2016, para. 22
Paragraphe- Paragraph text
- Like many other fundamental human rights, privacy is a dynamic right, not a static right. An expectation of and a preference for privacy has existed for thousands of years, but this does not mean that the degree of protection of the right or the understanding of the boundaries of the right have remained unchanged as the direction has moved to greater protection. Privacy has developed over time, and much evidence has been identified prior to the creation of the Special Rapporteur mandate and the appointment of the incumbent which shows how the understanding of privacy and the exercise of the right has varied across the dimensions of "Time, Place and Space". Contrary to what some may think, recognizing this reality does nothing to undermine the existence of the right nor its universality. Instead, it makes one reflect about the complex set of values that underpin the right and the way that our understanding of the right needs to change as circumstances change in order for the underlying values to continue to be protected and indeed, as much as possible, have their protection increased. The advent and applications of new technologies such as the smartphone is one typical example of how we need to update our understanding of privacy. As United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito put it, in the landmark United States case of Riley v. California in 2014: We should not mechanically apply the rule used in the predigital era to the search of a cell phone. Many cell phones now in use are capable of storing and accessing a quantity of information, some highly personal, that no person would ever have had on his person in hard-copy form. In this, Alito is concurring with the majority opinion as expressed by Chief Justice John Roberts that: Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans "the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Needless to say, it is not just Americans who wittingly or unwittingly surrender "the privacies of life" to their cell phones. Indeed, every single person on earth who carries a smartphone has entrusted to their most used portable device the privacies of their life irrespective of their creed, colour, ethnic origin, gender, nationality or geographical location. Which is why many of the observations made in Riley v. California are also of global importance. The Special Rapporteur will here quote extensively from this United States case since it outlines some of the arguments which should be considered next in the overall context of the dispute between Apple and the FBI wherever such issues are raised across the globe.
- Status juridique
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Organe
- Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
- Type de document
- Special Procedures' report
- Mode d'adoption
- N.A.
- Thèmes
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Personnes concernées
- N.A.
- Année
- 2016
- Type de paragraphe
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 22
trié par
Date ajouter
30 Relations, 30 Entités