Ontsleutelplicht may violate human rights treaty




The Council for the Judiciary, the umbrella organization of judges, is critical of the ‘ontsleutelplicht “that the government wants to introduce. Perhaps the command, which suspects can decrypt, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Forced files

Encryptie – sleutel In an opinion to the government writes the Council for the Judiciary that the ontsleutelplicht the nemo-tenetur principle is at stake. This principle means that no one can be forced to his own conviction to work with and is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to the government to the principle nemo-tenetur and ontsleutelplicht through a door, but the Council for the Judiciary is not directly convinced. According to the Council, the Cabinet must be aware that a judge for that reason refuses evidence that a ontsleutelbevel obtained. The Council also argues that the magistrate must give before a decryption Warrant will be issued permission. In the plans of Opstelten, a prosecutor himself decide to issue such an order. Out

According to the government, the ontsleutelplicht, which must still be approved by the Senate and the House, not unlike forcing suspects to stand for DNA research or motorists take to work on a breathalyzer. Cellular material off Moreover, the ontsleutelplicht only used for certain types of crimes, such as distribution of child pornography and terrorism. Who refuses to cooperate with a decryption command, can receive a prison sentence of three years according to the plans. Critics suggest that the risk that suspects their encryption key genuinely do not know and therefore can not decrypt files.

About another plan of Opstelten, under certain conditions, to penetrate, investigating computers within the Council is less critical. The organization says that privacy is important, but that the plans of Opstelten take this into account. Hacking a computer may only if the judge gives permission. Who must weigh or justifies the purpose of the study the infringement of another’s privacy.

Another plan of Opstelten should make it easier to remove. Material from the Internet A prosecutor gets as it is to the government the power to withdraw such material. According to the Council for the Judiciary should there be a strong suspicion, and there must be a procedure for getting compensation as material wrongly removed. Moreover, the organization wonders how it is with material outside the Netherlands is hosted.


Tags: , ,

In: Technology & Gadgets Asked By: [15446 Red Star Level]

Answer this Question

You must be Logged In to post an Answer.

Not a member yet? Sign Up Now »