Open source intelligence (OSINT) is increasingly used for security and safety purposes. Even though security - and intelligence agencies and the police are using messages on social networking sites, weblogs, blogs or apps, state accountability mechanisms found it difficult to adapt to the online culture. Consider for instance the dilemma that open source information (OSINF) is frequently collected, processed, minded and stored by private companies. From a human right perspective, this gathering of OSINT demands proper checks and balances. Even though laws, regulations and policies may recognise this, it is important to review whether the gathering of OSINF online leads to new dilemmas.
Read moreThis article tackles the rise of smart surveillance in the European Union (EU). It introduces some of the main characteristic of smart surveillance systems, and it analyses two sets of projects: a series of eu-funded research projects on smart CCTV systems, and a legislative proposal to set up a eu-wide security measure relying on passenger information.
Read moreOn 15 April 2013, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Bureau decided to reactivate the 1997 Cooperation Agreement between the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA). As a reminder, the PA unilaterally withdrew from the Cooperation Agreement at the Dublin OSCE Ministerial Council in December 2012, shocking the OSCE and its participating States. (See previous blog on this topic). As a result, the February presidential election in Armenia exposed the rift between the two institutions, with ODIHR and PA delivering separate statements at separate press conferences. This created confusion among media representatives and undermined the credibility of OSCE election observation activities. In order to reestablish a professional working relationship, an Ad Hoc Committee on Transparency and Reform, led by Francois-Xavier de Donnea (Belgium) was established.
Read moreUkraine, the country currently holding the OSCE Chairmanship, has come under increasing pressure mainly by the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasburg due to concerns over the independence of its judiciary and cases of selective justice. More specifically, the ECHR ruled on 30 April 2013 that the pre-trial detention of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko in 2011 had been “arbitrary; that the lawfulness of her detention had not been properly reviewed; and, that she had no possibility to seek compensation for her unlawful deprivation of liberty.”[1] The ECHR found that Tymoshenko’s pre-trial detention had been in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court has yet to rule on the lawfulness of a seven-year sentence, pronounced in October 2011, which found Tymoshenko guilty of abuse of office while serving as prime minister in 2009, especially in relation to her role in a gas deal with Russia that allegedly cost Ukraine billions of dollars annually. Voices have become louder over the last years by the EU and other western states that Tymoshenko’s trial and sentence may have been politically motivated, helping Ukrainian president Yanukovich to remove a political rival.
[1] See press release (dated 30 April 2013) of the European Court of Human Rights, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4343134-5208270#{"itemid":["003-4343134-5208270"]}
