CyberPeace Foundation: End (-to-End Encrypted) Child Sexual Abuse Material
Executive Summary Until recently, the distribution arrangements for Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) had been largely identified on the public web and the dark web.…
Executive Summary Until recently, the distribution arrangements for Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) had been largely identified on the public web and the dark web.…
Reitov, Ole, and Sara Whyatt. The Fragile Triangle of Artistic Freedom: A Study of the Documentation and Monitoring of Artistic Freedom in the Global Landscape.…
2018 Global Freedom of Expression Prize Ceremony Low Library, Columbia University April 25, 2018 Tonight, we are celebrating both resilience and conviction. We are…
Yesterday, 3 April 2018, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, along with 93 civil society organisations from across the globe, sent a letter to the Secretary…
NOMINATIONS FORM IN ENGLISH FORMULARIO DE NOMINACIÓN EN ESPAÑOL The Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes celebrate judicial decisions and legal services around the world…
Gherbal Initiative (GI) was established in early 2018 to enhance transparency and fight corruption in the public and private sectors and to shift the political…
RAIF BADAWI AWARD For Courageous Journalists 2020 The Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Keynote Speech Agnes Callamard, Director, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression; UN Special…
Corresponding Law Reference – Sunday Times v UK 2 E.H.R.R 245 (1979), is a lower court reference. It may be unnecessary because it was of the higher ECtHR.
“On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted pursuant to that provision, such as Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, by which the European Commission finds that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of that directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection.
2. Decision 2000/520 is invalid.”
Thank God, the insanity only lasted three days. The City Hall of São Paulo, the biggest city in South America, surrealistically ordered taxi drivers to…