LINK
GB: As early as 1993, newspapers published telephone calls between Charles and Camilla
limits to the press and TV: the rules abroad
In the Czech Republic the law more severe: up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to almost € 200,000 to the newspaper
May 21, 2010 - The relationship between the confidentiality of conversations, the interception as an investigative tool and the freedom of the press in recent years, have become crucial in all advanced democracies. The technology makes it theoretically possible to control the communications to a level only once its enormous KGB Soviet spy apparatus. Limits are in almost all countries, but the publication of the interception in the public interest generally faced few obstacles. Here's an overview of the situation in the major European Union countries, Russia and the United States.
Britain: No barrier is whether the public interest
LONDON - could be traced back to 8th February 1587 when Mary Queen of Scots was accused of high treason: the noble British intercepted and manipulated the letters of the Queen of Scotland take her to the guillotine. It was the first 'interception' in modern history? But it could jump to 1993, when the newspapers published telephone calls between Charles and Camilla. "I can not bear a Sunday night without you." "I want to be your Tampax." What a scandal. Of intercepted communications has been discussed for five centuries. Sacred is the sacred right to privacy and the right to information: what is the proper balance? It is the 'Regulation of Investigatory Power Act governing the subject. The Ministry of the Interior authorizing wiretaps that, in principle, can not be distributed or reproduced. But the "Freedom of Information Act gives the 'right to know", then check, by requesting the Commissioner or the courts which decide the investigations and to publish them. Where the prevailing interest public there is no barrier to hold. Even at Buckingham Palace (the whispers of the love of Charles and Camilla teach) bow down to this sacred principle.
Fabio Cavalera
France: The source is protected except in exceptional cases
PARIS - In France professional secrecy for journalists is protected. The intercepts, as has happened in recent cases (process Clearstream, who saw the face of President Sarkozy and former Prime Minister Villepin), were also published during the investigation and only in exceptional cases may be required to disclose their source. There have been examples of journalists sentenced for disclosing interceptions (the case of the cell at the time of Mitterrand's Elysee secret) but then acquitted the European Court in Strasbourg. In essence, the journalist publishes legal documents and protect their sources, but may face in the crime of defamation and breach of the presumption of innocence of the individual mentioned in the wiretaps or legal documents. In this case, the legislation remains in balance between the rights of the press and individuals. The journalist risks being sued for libel. According to a recent study, the interceptions have increased over the past five years (26,000 in 2008), in addition to about six thousand interception 'administrative', that is not authorized by the court.
Massimo Nava
Spain: Absence of Malice without consequences
MADRID - in recent weeks has sparked a debate in Spain on the work of Judge Baltasar Garzon who intercepted conversations between the accused of corruption in the case Gürtel (involving politicians from the autonomous communities of Madrid and Valencia) and their lawyers, and has been sued for abuse of office, since they are generally secure conversations. According to Article 579 of the "Ley de enjuiciamiento criminal 'interception can be ordered by a judge for a period of three months (extendable for another three). If emergency may also be ordered by Interior Minister if the investigation is armed bands or terrorists. Although in legal circles is to discuss the guarantees offered by current law, the public interest in Spain is considered to be prevalent, so the publication of eavesdropping can not be prosecuted. The wiretaps were ordered by Garzon Gürtel in the case have been published without any implication for publishers and journalists. "A law similar to the Italian-El País-assured yesterday would have led to jail journalists who investigated the case."
Elizabeth Rosamond
Czech Republic: Call to Europe to "muzzle"
BRUSSELS - It entered into force on 1 ˚ April 2009. But all was not that an April Fool. In Prague they now call "muzzle law": Why the saddled up to 5 years in jail journalists who publish the contents of a wiretap court or any news about a suspect or suspects, "even if he does in the public interest ' , and a fine of up to 5 million crowns (about € 194 000) publishing company for which the offender works. Originally the law was presented as a miniemendamento the penal code, aimed at protecting children from unwanted publicity victims of abuse: "It is understood, I stand with the victims not with the media, "said President Vaclav Klaus in fact, when the Czechs and journalists" Reporters sans Frontieres pleaded with him to block the law with his veto. In July 2009, Brussels, the European Federation of the editors called "urgent" action to the presidency of the EU, "an act of solidarity with the federations of the press in Italy and the Czech Republic, on an issue that concerns us much: the freedom of the press .... " Since then, the muzzle has remained in place.
Louis Offeddu
Russia: journalists are not allowed only the state secrets
MOSCOW - In Russia all phones, mobile phones and Internet terminals are permanently connected to listening centers of the security services, the FSB, successor to the KGB. The interception can take to "any grounds for suspicion designed, made or is about to take." The FSB shall individually and within 24 hours for authorization to the competent magistrate. When the dance is a state secret, the FSB can keep confidential all documents, including the indictment. In some cases, this secret is also the lawyer defending the accused. In the normal procedure acts, interrogation and wiretapping reported by the investigating judge to the lawyers Defenders can be freely published in the newspapers that they can find them. The investigating magistrate may at any time, however, have particular elements that must remain secret if he thinks that is crucial to the ongoing inquiry. The trial of the case in question is quite public, unless there is a state secret.
Fabrizio Dragosei
United States, "Wiretap" legal and accessible to the media
NEW YORK - In the United States interception by third parties are legal in both federal and state, with the approval of a judge. Under the First Amendment of the Constitution on freedom of the press, the media have full access to the publication of material relating to them. "We can publish anything - said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press-provided they do not present an imminent threat to national security or the physical integrity of somebody." From the Pentagon Papers to Sexgate, the free media access to such material is considered one of the key elements of American democracy. In the vast majority of States also secretly record a phone call just one of the consent of both parties. Started in 1890 with the invention of the recorder, the wiretapping was used by most U.S. presidents since the Supreme Court has made legal in 1928. In 1968 Congress passed a law requiring court approval for eavesdropping on criminal investigations.
Alessandra Farkas
0 comments:
Post a Comment