sovereignty and jurisdiction in cyberspace

In Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v. Sweden on the eviction of immigrants in connection with their use of a satellite dish to watch broadcasts from their home country The European Court of Justice found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The judgment noted, inter alia, that the satellite antenna allowed the applicants and their children to receive television programs in Arabic and Farsi from their home country and region. This information, which included political and social news and, just as important, cultural and entertainment programs, was of particular interest to them as a family of immigrants who wish to maintain contact with the culture and language of their country of origin. Moreover, the applicants' eviction from their home with three children was disproportionate to the aim pursued.1. Telecommunications.A resonant case in this area is the case of Roman Zakharov v. Russia. In accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, mobile operators are required to install special equipment that allows law enforcement agencies to carry out operational-search measures (the so-called SORM system).The European Court ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, considering that Russian legal norms governing the interception (eavesdropping) of communications did not provide for the existence of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness and the risk of abuse that are inherent in any secret surveillance system.The Court has found deficiencies in the following areas of regulation:- in relation to the circumstances under which state authorities in Russia have the right to use secret surveillance measures;- determination of the duration of such measures, in particular, the conditions under which they should be terminated;- procedures for authorizing wiretapping, as well as storing and destroying the received data;- listening supervision.It is also necessary to predict an increase in judicial practice in this category of cases, especially in the case of the adoption in Russia of the draft Federal Law N 1039149-6 "On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in terms of establishing additional measures to counter terrorism and ensure public security ", which stipulates the obligation of telecom operators to store on the territory of the Russian Federation:- information on the facts of reception, transmission, delivery and (or) processing of voice information, text messages, images, sounds, video or other messages of users of communication services within three years from the moment of completion of such actions;- text messages from users of communication services, voice information, images, sounds, video and other messages from users of communication services up to six months from the end of their reception, transmission, delivery and (or) processing.7. Useofhiddencameras.There are two cases of interest on this issue. Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland The European Court of Justice has considered for the first time the issue of the use of hidden cameras by journalists in order to provide the public with information on a topic of public interest, when a person is filmed not in his personal capacity, but as a representative of a particular professional category. The European Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the applicants (the right to freedom of expression), taking into account, in particular, that the interference with the broker's private life was not serious enough to outweigh public interest in information on malpractice in the activities of an insurance broker.8. Video surveillance.In Perry v. United Kingdom, in connection with the use of video surveillance at a police station to identify an alleged perpetrator, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life).At the same time, at present, there is a clear trend associated with the expansion of interference in a person's private life caused by the spread of new technologies, and, accordingly, there is a need to develop new guarantees for the observance of human rights in the information society.At the same time, it should be borne in mind that, as noted in the above-mentioned Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers, guarantees of the rights provided for in article 8 of the Convention should not be the basis for restricting the right to freedom of expression on the Internet, guaranteed Article 10 of the Convention.2.2 Decisions of the EU Court of Justice on the Protection of Civil and Political Human Rights and Freedoms in CyberspaceThe absence in international law of a single universal treaty that comprehensively regulates the right to respect for private and family life and the inviolability of home and correspondence is one of the reasons for the creation within the framework of regional organizations of norms to protect these human rights.The European Convention, being one of the main regional documents in the field of human rights protection, guarantees a total of about 30 rights, including those provided directly in the Convention and those enshrined in the Protocols thereto. These rights, as noted by M.V. Voskobitov, are classified depending on the ability of the state to interfere in the exercise of this or that right:absolute rights (the state under no circumstances has the right to deviate from the observance of these rights - the right to life, prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, etc.); rights exercised in the sphere of justice (right to liberty and security of person, right to a fair trial); substantively qualified rights (rights guaranteed by Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life, 9 - freedom of thought, conscience and religion, 10 - freedom of expression, and 11 - freedom of assembly and association, already in the text of these articles allow for state interference in the exercise of this right);rights with inherent restrictions (the specific content of a particular right is determined by the state itself, taking into account the historically established norms, customs and specifics of each particular state).However, special protection in accordance with Art. 6 deserve personal data relating to race, political opinion, religious or other beliefs, as well as personal data relating to health or sexuality, which cannot be processed automatically, if the internal legislation does not establish appropriate guarantees ... This provision also applies to personal data relating to criminal records. The risk that the processing of data will harm people, as a rule, does not depend on the content of the data, but on the context in which it is used, but there are exceptional cases when the processing of certain categories of data in itself may lead to a violation of individual rights and interests. This article lists those categories of data that are considered particularly sensitive in all Member States.The Convention establishes a wide range of rights of subjects of personal data collection in the field of access to information about the existence of personal data bases, their content, the possibility of changing or destroying data that do not meet the necessary criteria (Article 8). Exceptions to the basic principles of data protection are limited solely to the need to protect fundamental values ​​in a democratic society.Despite some problems, we can say that the cooperation of states in the field of human rights and freedoms created within the framework of the Council of Europe is characterized by quite tangible signs, has considerable achievements and is steadily developing in order to increase the effectiveness of existing guarantees of individual rights and freedoms.The ECHR is the backbone of the most successful international human rights protection system, and its impact on European public law is enormous.The interpretation of the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (within the Council of Europe) is most fully defined in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.Due to the fact that the original idea and purpose of the creation of the European Communities were exclusively economic reasons, the topic of human rights was not touched upon either in the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community of April 18, 1951, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community ( Rome, 1957), nor in the Treaty establishing the European Community (Rome, March 25, 1957).The general provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights emphasize its linkage to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights of 1950, which is intended to resolve possible issues of interpretation of individual rights, but does not prevent the European Union from expanding the content or guarantees of the corresponding rights in comparison with those laid down in the European Convention.The trend towards greater integration in the field of human rights law between the European Union and the Council of Europe is reflected in the EU's accession to the ECHR. This will increase the level and effectiveness of human rights protection in Europe through the implementation of independent external control over the EU legal system, will make it possible to apply to the ECHR with complaints about human rights violations, not only by national authorities, but also by the EU as a whole, in scooping up domestic remedies, under EU law, will help harmonize the case law of the EU court and the ECHR.“The multidimensionality of human rights protection systems in the EU states serves as their distinctive feature, since in fact, in each EU state, three systems of human rights protection operate in parallel: two supranational (the EU court and the ECHR) and one national represented by the constitutional (supreme) courts, which leaves its imprint on the activities of all three systems, in particular, there are questions of their unification and harmonization, as well as competition between the judiciary ”. This circumstance creates some difficulties in a uniform understanding of the essence of the rights under consideration, and, therefore, is reflected in their protection.The law of the European Union is characterized by such normative legal acts as the Regulations of the Council of the European Union. One of them is of particular interest in the context of protecting the right to family life.Regulations of November 27, 2003 No. 2201 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of court decisions in marriage cases and matters of parental responsibility, which was developed as a single document on issues of divorce and parental responsibility, contains provisions on the procedure for determining jurisdiction in cases of divorce and return of children, some procedural aspects of considering such cases, recognition and procedure for the execution of court decisions, issues of cooperation between EU states on the return of children. This document is a regional reflection of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction of Children.In June 1994, a Partnership Agreement was signed between Russia and the European Union. The mutual obligations of the parties are set out in 112 articles, ten annexes, two protocols and a number of joint declarations included in the original Agreement, where attention is paid to the issues of mutual protection of intellectual property rights, protection of competition and many other areas of joint activity in areas of politics and economics. When implementing the provisions of the Agreement, Russia will benefit from the experience of the European Union: for example, in July 2006, the Russian Federation adopted the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”, which is similar in content to the law in force in the EU.It seems that the materials of the law enforcement practice of the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Commission in the field of protection of intellectual property rights may be in demand in the activities of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights in our country.ConclusionThus, the following conclusions can be drawn.The modern world cannot be imagined without the Internet with its unique communication and information capabilities. This year, the number of Internet users around the world has approached the 3 billion mark. At the same time, there is a significant digital divide between developed and developing countries, industrial and rural regions, and between population groups in a particular country.Access to the Internet is a universal telecommunications service, the obligation of which is borne by the state to its population. Using the Internet allows citizens to take part in public life and exercise their rights and freedoms. Restricting access to the Internet greatly reduces such opportunities. An approach is spreading according to which human rights in the “real” world have their “digital reflection” in the virtual world.It follows from this that human rights and freedoms online should be realized no less than offline. The problem is that the basic international legal documents in the field of human rights were adopted long before there was an opportunity to use the rights and freedoms proclaimed in them online. The right to access the Internet can be viewed as the right of a new “digital” generation of human rights, which causes controversy among international lawyers, both theorists and practitioners.The dynamics of the development and improvement of methods of committing crimes in the field of computer information is growing every day, it is high time for the Russian legislator to pay attention to the problem associated with cyber space, which has become an integral part of everyone's life, since Russia, alas, still stands in the first place in the world in terms of the number of computer attacks falling on active Internet users, where the main condition for the emergence of such a large number of victims of computer crimes is the computer illiteracy of the population.List of referencesNorbert Wiener. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine / Hermann & CieEditeurs. Paris: The Technology Press, Cambridge: Mass., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1948.Cyberspace as a strategic tool for social engineering. URL: https: // whatisgood.ru/theory/analytics/kiberprostranstvo-kak-strategicheskiy-instrument/ (date of access 07/14/2021).Dobrinskaya D.E. Cyberspace: the territory of modern life // VestnikMosk. un-that. Ser. 18 "Sociology and Politics". - 2018. - T. 24. - No. 1. - P. 58.Makarenko S.I. Information confrontation and electronic warfare in network-centric warriors at the beginning of the XXI century. - SPb .: Science-intensive technologies, 2017 .-- P. 237.AFDD 3-13. Information Operations. USAF, 2011 .-- 65 p.Zhonghuaren-min gonghegowanloanquan fa [Chinese Cyber ​​Security Law] // ^ ILK ^ SHA ^ Quanguorenmindaibiaodahui [National People's Congress]. URL: http: //www.npc. gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2016-11/07/content_2001605.htm (date of access 07/14/2021).Warden J.A. The Enemy as a System // Airpower Journal. - 1995. - Vol. 9. - No. 1.E.V. Batueva Political Dialogue on Internet Governance // World Politics: New Problems and Directions: Collection of articles. scientific. Art. / ed. M.M. Lebedeva. - M .: MGIMO University, 2009. - S. 15-22;Bedritsky A.B. American cyber control policy / A.B. Bedritsky // Problems of National Strategy. - 2010. - No. 2 (3).Streltsov A. On the problems of adaptation of international law to information conflicts [Electronic resource]. URL: https: // digital. report / problemyi-adaptatsii-mezhdunarodnogo-prava-k-informatsionnyim-konfliktam / (date of access 07/14/2021)."These provisions not apply to specific weapons. They applet to any use of force, regardless of the weapons employed." Legality of the threat of use of nuclear weapons. ICJ Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, Step Z9.William M. Stahl. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://interlaws.ru/kiberbezopasnost-i-mezhdunarodnoe-pravo/ (date of treatment 07/14/2021).Kozik A.L. Development of information technologies and legal regulation of public relations // StudiiJuridiceUniversitare. - 2008. - No. 3, 4. - P. 122, 123.A summary of the decisions, advisory opinions and orders of the International Court of Justice (1948 - 1941). United Nations publication. - S. 205; Case concerning oil platforms. International Court of Justice, Judgment of 6 November 2003. -Rag 51, 62; Jus ad bellum. Ethiopia's Claims 1-8. Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award, 19 December 2005.Convention on Computer Crime ETS No. 185 (Budapest, November 23, 2001) [Electronic resource]. URL: https: // base.garant.ru/4089723/ (date of treatment 07/14/2021).Draft United Nations Convention on Cooperation in the Sphere of Counteracting Information Crime [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.mid.ru/ documents / (date of treatment 07/14/2021).