Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRomero Moreno, Felipe
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-13T15:59:49Z
dc.date.available2017-01-13T15:59:49Z
dc.date.issued2016-04-26
dc.identifier.citationRomero 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 , vol. 30 , no. 3 , pp. 229-247 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2016.1176320
dc.identifier.issn1360-0869
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 10214579
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 69d9a81a-1291-4e14-b66d-e927ac383e23
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84994670318
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/17513
dc.descriptionThis is the accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Review of Law on 26 April 2016, available online at doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2016.1176320. Under embargo. Embargo end date: 26 October 2018.
dc.description.abstractThis 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.en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Review of Law, Computers & Technology
dc.rights/dk/atira/pure/core/openaccesspermission/embargoed
dc.subjectDigital Economy Act 2010 (DEA)
dc.subjectPrivacy
dc.subjectCopyright
dc.subjectOnline piracy
dc.subjectSubscriber monitoring
dc.subjectArticle 8 ECHR
dc.subjectMarkMonitor DtecNet
dc.subjectDirected surveillance
dc.subjectRIPA 2000
dc.subjectfile-sharing
dc.titleThe Digital Economy Act 2010: subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHRen
dc.contributor.institutionHertfordshire Law School
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.date.embargoedUntil2018-10-26
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600869.2016.1176320?journalCode=cirl20
dc.relation.schoolHertfordshire Law School
dc.description.versiontypeFinal Accepted Version
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-04-07
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2016.1176320
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-10-26+01:00
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue
herts.date.embargo2018-10-26+01:00
herts.rights.accesstypeopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record