[governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership

[Ginger Paque]

Although this certainly is a complex issue, shouldn't diplomatic immunity
be extended to e-documents in similar contexts? Jovan Kurbalija explains it
better than I can in the blog post 'Do e-mail and e-documents have
diplomatic protection?'
http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/do-e-mail-and-e-documents-have-diplomatic-protection

Excerpt:

The short answer is YES! A bit longer answer could be prompted by
questions… why, over the last few days, have we not heard news about
ambassadors presenting demarches in Washington, with reasonable doubts
whether their e-mails have been intercepted? Or… the news that some
national legal adviser, with the hope to have his/her name written in legal
history, is preparing a court case against the USA on the grounds of
unauthorised access to diplomatic documents stored on Google Drive?

In these examples I have mentioned the USA because of the recent PRISM
outrage and the concentration of the Internet industry in the USA. But, in
principle,  any country could be responsible for (not) observing diplomatic
e-immunities.

One of the early incidents involving e-immunities dates back to 2002, when
a local Turkish newspaper intercepted and published an e-mail sent by the
European Union (EU) delegation in Turkey. The EU demanded...


Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation

*The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance:
Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation,
Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic
Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*
 **
**


On 24 June 2013 09:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Any such exemption would be explicitly granted and documented. To my
> knowledge such an exemption doesn't seem to exist though. I would love to
> be proved wrong.
>
> Marie GEORGES [24/06/13 16:16 +0200]:
>
>> OF course and there are many other long standing principles relating to
>> applicable law and I showed you one case in which US accepted not to apply
>> the "sovereignty" principle to data on its territory because the activity
>> at stake, except "processing of related data", had nothing to do with US
>>
>> Other example, even if the Data Protection law is a "public order" law in
>> EU, EU decided  not to apply the DP directive of 1995 to  data only "in
>> transit" ....
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130624/6f3d8532/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t