In China's latest crackdown on Hong Kong's independent media, a Hong Kong Court has now denied bail to the two former senior news editors.

Hong Kong court denies bail to two former senior news editors amid crackdown on independent media

<p>In a manner that has become emblematic of the privacy discourse in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, today ruled in favor of denying employers access to their employees&rsquo; communications. The judgment further drives home the point of the differential treatment of privacy by various jurisdictions and notably, how the expectation of privacy varies significantly.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The case before the Grand Chamber of 17 judges first arose in 2007 and involved the termination of a Romanian national Bogdan Mihai Barbulescu by his then employer. Barbulescu was dismissed by his employer for using is Yahoo! Messenger account for his personal communications. Finding that the employer had not given prior notice to Barbulescu that his communications would be monitored and that the extent of monitoring was too intrusive, the Court held that his dismissal violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In its ruling, the Court balanced the need to protect the right to privacy of an individual against a company&rsquo;s imperative to ensure that its IT systems are not damaged or used for illegal activities. The judgment, however, in dismissing the latter as hypothetical harms appears to have inadequately applied its judicial mind to the issue. Much of the contours of the right to privacy along with the reasonable restrictions therein are decided on hypothetical harms. In part, this is because of the nature of technology and the impossibility of predicting the ways in which intrusive technology can evolve.<strong>&nbsp;V</strong>iolations of the right to privacy are often not as easy to detect and remedy as other rights &ndash; illustrated by the NSA&rsquo;s unauthorised snooping that was brought to the light by<strong>&nbsp;</strong>Snowden.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The answer to this, however, does not lie in an evangelical conception of privacy where the only way of safeguarding rights is by denying access to information. In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. As Prof. Helen Nissenbaum, of the New York University, argues, privacy strengthening frameworks should focus on the manner in which information is used rather than controlling the flow of information or denying access to information.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Frameworks that advocate for securing information in a manner that renders it inaccessible, can not only stifle data-dependent innovation but also strike an unfair balancing act between the right to privacy and it&rsquo;s interaction with other rights. Take, for instance, an absolutist understanding of privacy that denies the state any interference with one&rsquo;s private/marital life. This can have the effect of enabling domestic violence and systemic abuse.</p>

<p>This is a central contribution when it comes to informational privacy. Due to the transient nature of the medium, often real time monitoring of communication is the only means of identifying foul play. This monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In its judgement, the Court considered whether the stated objectives of the employer &ndash; ensuing safety of its IT systems and preventing illegal activity &ndash; could have been achieved through less intrusive means. The court found that the company had not employed means that were less intrusive and had thus run afoul of Article 8. This may not hold true in all cases.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Sensitive crimes such as transfer of trade secrets, unauthorised access to company servers etc. which are commonplace, can often only be detected by logging keystrokes or real time monitoring of employees&rsquo; activities.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The ways in which the judgement will affect the evolution of privacy in Europe remains to be seen, however, the rest of the world has much to learn from this understanding of the right. Emerging markets like India that are determining the contours of their right to privacy and data protection cannot afford to adopt a notion of privacy that denies innovation and curtails other rights.</p>


Emerging markets like India that are determining the contours of their right to privacy and data protection cannot afford to adopt a notion of privacy that denies innovation and curtails other rights.

In a manner that has become emblematic of the privacy discourse in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, today ruled in favor of denying employers access to their employees’ communications. The judgment further drives home the point of the differential treatment of privacy by various jurisdictions and notably, how the expectation of privacy varies significantly. Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. × The case before the Grand Chamber of 17 judges first arose in 2007 and involved the termination of a Romanian national Bogdan Mihai Barbulescu by his then employer. Barbulescu was dismissed by his employer for using is Yahoo! Messenger account for his personal communications. Finding that the employer had not given prior notice to Barbulescu that his communications would be monitored and that the extent of monitoring was too intrusive, the Court held that his dismissal violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. In its ruling, the Court balanced the need to protect the right to privacy of an individual against a company’s imperative to ensure that its IT systems are not damaged or used for illegal activities. The judgment, however, in dismissing the latter as hypothetical harms appears to have inadequately applied its judicial mind to the issue. Much of the contours of the right to privacy along with the reasonable restrictions therein are decided on hypothetical harms. In part, this is because of the nature of technology and the impossibility of predicting the ways in which intrusive technology can evolve. Violations of the right to privacy are often not as easy to detect and remedy as other rights – illustrated by the NSA’s unauthorised snooping that was brought to the light by Snowden. In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. × The answer to this, however, does not lie in an evangelical conception of privacy where the only way of safeguarding rights is by denying access to information. In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. As Prof. Helen Nissenbaum, of the New York University, argues, privacy strengthening frameworks should focus on the manner in which information is used rather than controlling the flow of information or denying access to information. Frameworks that advocate for securing information in a manner that renders it inaccessible, can not only stifle data-dependent innovation but also strike an unfair balancing act between the right to privacy and it’s interaction with other rights. Take, for instance, an absolutist understanding of privacy that denies the state any interference with one’s private/marital life. This can have the effect of enabling domestic violence and systemic abuse. This is a central contribution when it comes to informational privacy. Due to the transient nature of the medium, often real time monitoring of communication is the only means of identifying foul play. This monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse. Monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse. × In its judgement, the Court considered whether the stated objectives of the employer – ensuing safety of its IT systems and preventing illegal activity – could have been achieved through less intrusive means. The court found that the company had not employed means that were less intrusive and had thus run afoul of Article 8. This may not hold true in all cases. Sensitive crimes such as transfer of trade secrets, unauthorised access to company servers etc. which are commonplace, can often only be detected by logging keystrokes or real time monitoring of employees’ activities. The ways in which the judgement will affect the evolution of privacy in Europe remains to be seen, however, the rest of the world has much to learn from this understanding of the right. Emerging markets like India that are determining the contours of their right to privacy and data protection cannot afford to adopt a notion of privacy that denies innovation and curtails other rights.

How the European Court of Human Rights verdict on privacy of employees impacts India

A court in Bangladesh on Thursday allowed police to detain two men over the attack claimed by militant group Islamic State on a cafe in the capital, Dhaka, that killed 20 hostages, mostly foreigners.<br />
<br />
The case has drawn criticism from human rights groups who say the suspects were illegally detained and denied access to a lawyer. A lawyer for one of the two men, Hasnat Karim, said his client was innocent and demanded his immediate release.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Karim, who holds dual British and Bangladeshi citizenship, and Tahmid Hasib Khan, a student of Toronto University, were dining separately with family and friends when gunmen stormed the Holey Artisan Bakery on the evening of July 1.<br />
<br />
The suspected Islamist militants singled out non-Muslims and foreigners, killing Italians, Japanese, an American and an Indian before security forces stormed the eatery to end the 12-hour siege. Two police also died in the operation.<br />
<br />
On Thursday, a Dhaka court remanded the men in custody for eight days for interrogation, with police official Masudur Rahman telling reporters they had been arrested on Wednesday night &quot;from two different places&quot;.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
<strong>Unknown location</strong><br />
<br />
The police assertion of arrests at different sites appeared to run counter to relatives&#39; statements that the men were held at unknown locations after the attack.<br />
<br />
&quot;The authorities have finally admitted that Mr Karim is in their custody,&quot; his London-based lawyer, Rodney Dixon, told Reuters in a statement.<br />
<br />
&quot;They have had more than sufficient time to make any inquiries. There is clearly no evidence to charge him and he should be let go without any further delay.&quot;<br />
<br />
Rights group Amnesty International has criticised the detention of the men as having denied them their fundamental right to legal representation.<br />
<br />
The formal arrests take to seven the tally for the cafe attack, which the government blames on local militants, along with another, on July 26, in which police killed nine militants believed to be plotting a similar assault.<br />
<br />
The government has dismissed suggestions that Islamic State has a presence in Bangladesh, even though &#39;selfies&#39; of some of the attackers posing with an automatic rifle were posted on the jihadi group&#39;s propaganda outlets during the siege.<br />
<br />
In the past year, al Qaeda and Islamic State have made competing claims over the killings of liberals and religious minorities in the mostly Muslim nation of 160 million.<br />
<br />
Karim and Khan were among 32 survivors rescued by police and taken into custody for questioning. Police released the others soon after, but the two men&#39;s families said they had not returned.<br />
<br />
Karim, a 47-year-old engineer, was at the cafe with his family to celebrate his daughter&#39;s 13th birthday.<br />
<br />
Relatives of Khan, 22, told the New York Times that the student, who has epilepsy, had been beaten and denied medical attention after being held.<br />
<br />
Khan&#39;s father, reached by telephone, declined to comment.<br />
<br />
(Reuters)

Amnesty International has criticised the detention of the men as having denied them their fundamental right to legal representation

A court in Bangladesh on Thursday allowed police to detain two men over the attack claimed by militant group Islamic State on a cafe in the capital, Dhaka, that killed 20 hostages, mostly foreigners. The case has drawn criticism from human rights groups who say the suspects were illegally detained and denied access to a lawyer. A lawyer for one of the two men, Hasnat Karim, said his client was innocent and demanded his immediate release. Karim, who holds dual British and Bangladeshi citizenship, and Tahmid Hasib Khan, a student of Toronto University, were dining separately with family and friends when gunmen stormed the Holey Artisan Bakery on the evening of July 1. The suspected Islamist militants singled out non-Muslims and foreigners, killing Italians, Japanese, an American and an Indian before security forces stormed the eatery to end the 12-hour siege. Two police also died in the operation. On Thursday, a Dhaka court remanded the men in custody for eight days for interrogation, with police official Masudur Rahman telling reporters they had been arrested on Wednesday night "from two different places". Unknown location The police assertion of arrests at different sites appeared to run counter to relatives' statements that the men were held at unknown locations after the attack. "The authorities have finally admitted that Mr Karim is in their custody," his London-based lawyer, Rodney Dixon, told Reuters in a statement. "They have had more than sufficient time to make any inquiries. There is clearly no evidence to charge him and he should be let go without any further delay." Rights group Amnesty International has criticised the detention of the men as having denied them their fundamental right to legal representation. The formal arrests take to seven the tally for the cafe attack, which the government blames on local militants, along with another, on July 26, in which police killed nine militants believed to be plotting a similar assault. The government has dismissed suggestions that Islamic State has a presence in Bangladesh, even though 'selfies' of some of the attackers posing with an automatic rifle were posted on the jihadi group's propaganda outlets during the siege. In the past year, al Qaeda and Islamic State have made competing claims over the killings of liberals and religious minorities in the mostly Muslim nation of 160 million. Karim and Khan were among 32 survivors rescued by police and taken into custody for questioning. Police released the others soon after, but the two men's families said they had not returned. Karim, a 47-year-old engineer, was at the cafe with his family to celebrate his daughter's 13th birthday. Relatives of Khan, 22, told the New York Times that the student, who has epilepsy, had been beaten and denied medical attention after being held. Khan's father, reached by telephone, declined to comment. (Reuters)

Bangladesh detains two over July cafe attack that killed 20 hostages

denied

Denied, News on Denied, stories on Denied, articles on Denied, Denied stories at Wion, Denied news, Denied latest news