[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Finnland und Europarath


Rigo, was haelst Du von diesem Deinem Link??

Appendix geht mir runter wie Butter....

Was der Bundesanwalt zu Ordnungsverfuegungen gesagt hat, den File find ich
nicht mehr, und ein debate archiv scheints nicht zu geben, jedenfalls kein
ohne weiteres zugaengliches, thanks. Was die Frage der Strafbarkeit der
"Beihilfe" bestrifft, ist eine negative Feststellungsklage unbedingt anzu-
streben, sich anklagen zu lassen ist zuviel Stress und allzuviel Heldentum
ist wohl nicht zu verlangen. Rechtsschutzbeduerfnis und Beruehmen ist gegeben
und damit, in zwei Zeilen, auch ein genuegend konkretes Rechtsverhaeltnis.

So eine Klage koennte auch jemand erheben, der der ECO-Empfehlung nachgekommen
ist, wegen der Drohung mit dem Strafverfahren.....

Mir ist die Rolle von ECO dabei nicht klar, muss man sich das als eine Art
Telekomgenossenschaft vorstellen, an die alle kleinen Provider sozusagen
zwangslaeufig angeschlossen sind? Sozusagen eine Reichsinternetkammer??
Holger wird das Stichwort sicher begierig aufnehmen

Btw, Datenschutz und Multiplexrundfunk. (Wo kommt der Ausdruck eigentlich her?)


COE Recommendation No. R (95) 13
<h2><CENTER>Recommendation No. R (95) 13</CENTER>
<CENTER>of the Committee of Ministers to Member States</CENTER><P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>Concerning Problems of Criminal Procedure Law<BR>
Connected with Information Technology <P></P></h2>

<CENTER><FONT SIZE=2>(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11
September 1995<BR>
at the 543 meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)</FONT><BR></CENTER>

    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of
the Statute of the Council of Europe.
    Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to
achieve a greater unity between its members;
    Having regard to the unprecedented development of information
technology and its application in all sectors of modern society;
    Realizing that the development of electronic information
systems will speed up the transformation of traditional society
into an information society by creating a new space for all types
of communications and relations;
    Aware of the impact of information technology on the manner in
which society is organised and on how individuals communications
and interrelate;
    Conscious that an increasing part of economic and social
relations will take place through or by use of electronic
information systems;
    Concerned at the risk that electronic information systems and
electronic information may also be used for committing criminal
    Considering that evidence of criminal offenses may be stored
and transferred by these systems;
    Noting that criminal procedure laws of members states often do
not yet provide for appropriate powers to search and collect
evidence in these systems in the course of criminal
    Recalling that the lack of appropriate special powers may
impair investigating authorities in the proper fufilment of their
tasks in the face of the ongoing development of information
    Recognising the need to adopt the legitimate tools which
investigating authorities are afforded under criminal procedure
laws the the specific nature of investigations in electronic
information systems;
    Concerned by the potential risk that member states may not be
able to render mutual legal assistance in an appropriate way when
requested to collect electronic evidence within their territory
from electronic information systems;
    Convinced of the necessity of strengthening internation co-
operation and achieving a greater compatibility of criminal
procedural laws in this field;
    Recalling Recommendation No. R (81) 20 of the Committee of
Ministers on the harmonisation of laws relating to the requirement
of written proof and to the admissibility of reproductions of
documents and recordings on computers, Recommendation No. R. (85)
10 on letters rogatory for the interception of telecommunications,
Recommendations No. R (87) 15 regulating the use of personal data
in the police state and Recommendations No. R (89) 9 on computer-
relating crime,
    Recommends the governments of member states:
i.  when reviewing their internal legislation and practice, to be
guided by the principles appended to this recommendation; and
ii. to ensure publicity for these principles among those
investigating authorities and other professional bodies, in
particular in the field of information technology, which may have
an interest in their application.
<h2> <P ALIGN=CENTER>Appendix to Recommendation No R. (95) 13
<center>concerning problems of criminal procedure law<BR>
connected with information technology</center></h2>

<H3>I. Search and seizure</H3>

1. The legal distinction between searching computers systems and
siezing data stored therein and intercepting data in the course of
transmission should be clearly delineated and applied.
2. Criminal procedure laws should permit investigating authorities
to search computer systems and seize data under similar conditions
as under traditional powers of search and seizure. The person in
charge of the system should be informed that the system has been
searched and of the kind of data that has been siezed. The legal
remedies that are provided for in general against search and
seizure should be equally applicable in case of search in computer
systems and in case of seizure of data therein.
3. During execution of a search, investigating authorities should
have the power, subject to appropriate safeguards, to extend the
search of other computer systems within their jurisdiction which
are connected by menas of a network and seize the data therein,
provided immediate action is required.
4. Where automatically processed data is functionally equivalent
to a traditional document, provisions in the criminal procedure
law relating to search and seizure of documents should apply
equally to it.
<H3>II. Technical Surveillance</H3>

5. in view of the convergance of information technology and
telecommunications, law pertaining to technical surveillance for
the purpose of criminal investigations, such as interception of
telecommunications, should be reviewed and amended, where
necessary, to ensure their applicability.

6. The law should permit investigating authorities to avail
themselves of all necessary technical measures that enable the
collection of traffic data in the investigation of crimes.
7. When collected in the course of a criminal investigation and in
particular when obtained by means of intercepting
telecommunications, data which is the object of legal protection
and processed by a compuer system should be secured in an
appropriate manner.
8. Criminal procedure laws should be reviewed with a view to
making possible the interception of telecommunications and the
collection of traffic data in the investigation of serious
offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability
of telecommunications or computer systems.

<H3>III. Obligations to co-operate with the investigating

9. Subject to legal privileges or protection, most legal systems
permit investigating authorities to order persons to hand over
objects under their control that are required to serve as
evidence. In a parallel fashion, provisions should be made for the
power to order persons to submit any specified data under their
control in a computer system in the form required by the
investigating authority.
10. Subject to legal privileges or protection, investigating
authorities should have the power to order persons who have data
in a computer system under their control to provide all necessary
information to enable access to a computer system and the data
theirin. Criminal procedure law should ensure that a similar order
can be given to other persons who have knowledge about the
functioning of the computer system or measures applied to secure
the data therein.
11. Specific obligations should be imposed on operators of public
and private networks that offer telecommunications services to the
public to avail themselves of all necessary technical measures
that enable the interception of telecommunications by the
investigating authorities.
12. Specific obligations should be imposed on service providers
who offer telecommunications services to the public, either
through public or private networks, to provide information to
identify the user, when so ordered by the compentant investigating

<H3>IV. Electronic Evidence</H3>

13. The common need to collect, preserve, and present electronic
evidence in ways that best ensure and reflect their integrity and
irrefutable authenticity, both for the purposes of domestic
prosecution and international co-operation, should be recognized.
Therefore, procedures and technical methods for handling
electronic evidence should be further developed, and particularly
in such a way as to ensure their compatability between states.
Criminal procedural law provisions on evidence relating to
tradition documents should similarly apply to data stored in a
computer system.

<H3>V. Use of Encryption</H3>

14. Measures should be considered to minimise the negative effects
of the use of cryptography on the investigation of criminal
offenses, without affecting its legitimate use more than is
strictly necessary.

<H3>VI. Research, statistics and training</H3>

15. The risks involved in the development and application of
information technology with regard to the commission of criminal
offenses should be assured continuously. In order to enable the
competent authorities to keep abrest of new phenomena in the field
of computer related offenses and to develop appropriate counter-
measures, the collection and analysis of data on these offenses,
including modus operandi and technical apsects, should be
16. The establishment of specialised units for the investigation
of offenses, the combating of which requires special expertise in
information technology, should be considered. Training programmes
enabling criminal justice personnel to avail themselves of
expertise in this field should be furthered.

<H3>VII. International Cooperation</H3>

17. The power to extend a search to other computer systems should
also be applicable when the system is located in a foreign
jurisdiction, provided that immediate action is required. In order
to avoid possible violations of state sovereignity or
international law, an unambigious legal basis for such extended
search and seizure should be established. Therefore, there is an
urgent need for negotiating international agreements as to how,
when and to what extent such search and seizure should be
18. Expedited and adequate procedures as well as a system of
liason should be available according to which the investigating
authorities may request the foreign authorities to promptly
collect evidence.  For that purpose the requested authorities
should be authorized to search a computer system and seize data
with a view to its subsequent transfer.  The requested authorities
should also be authorized to provide trafficking data rtelated to
a specific telecommunication, intercept a specific
telecommunication or identify its source. For that purpose, the
existing mutual legal assistance instruments need to be