Tokens: 6
.
On
request
of
the
General
Assembly
,
the
United
Nations
High
Commissioner
for
Human
Rights
(
UNHCHR
)
presented
a
report
on
30
June
2014
on
the
right
to
privacy
in
the
digital
age[8
]
.
The
report
dealt
with
the
protection
and
promotion
of
the
right
to
privacy
in
the
context
of
domestic
and
extraterritorial
surveillance
and
the
interception
of
digital
communications
and
the
collection
of
personal
data
,
including
on
a
mass
scale
.
Concerned
with
media
revelations
suggesting
that
the
National
Security
Agency
in
the
United
States
of
America
and
the
General
Communications
Headquarters
in
the
United
Kingdom
had
developed
technologies
allowing
access
to
much
global
internet
traffic
,
call
records
in
the
United
States
,
individuals
’
electronic
address
books
and
huge
volumes
of
other
digital
communications
content
,
and
that
these
technologies
had
been
deployed
through
a
transnational
network
comprising
strategic
intelligence
relationships
between
Governments
,
regulatory
control
of
private
companies
and
commercial
contracts
,
the
UNHCHR
underscored
that
,
other
than
the
right
to
privacy
,
the
rights
to
freedom
of
opinion
and
expression
,
and
to
seek
,
receive
and
impart
information
,
to
freedom
of
peaceful
assembly
and
association
and
to
family
life
may
also
be
affected
by
mass
surveillance
,
the
interception
of
digital
communications
and
the
collection
of
personal
data
.
Targeted
surveillance
of
digital
communication
may
constitute
a
necessary
and
effective
measure
for
intelligence
and
law-
enforcement
entities
when
conducted
in
compliance
with
international
and
domestic
law
,
but
“
it
will
not
be
enough
that
the
measures
are
targeted
to
find
certain
needles
in
a
haystack
;
the
proper
measure
is
the
impact
of
the
measures
on
the
haystack
,
relative
to
the
harm
threatened
;
namely
,
whether
the
measure
is
necessary
and
proportionate
”
.
Mandatory
third
-
party
data
retention
,
whereby
Governments
require
telephone
companies
and
Internet
service
providers
to
store
metadata
about
their
customers
’
communications
and
location
for
subsequent
law
-
enforcement
and
intelligence
agency
access
,
appears
neither
necessary
nor
proportionate
.
With
the
line
between
criminal
justice
and
protection
of
national
security
blurring
significantly
,
the
sharing
of
data
between
law
-
enforcement
agencies
,
intelligence
bodies
and
other
State
organs
risks
violating
the
right
to
privacy
,
because
surveillance
measures
that
may
be
necessary
and
proportionate
for
one
legitimate
aim
may
not
be
so
for
the
purposes
of
another
.
Thus
,
States
should
take
steps
to
ensure
that
effective
and
independent
oversight
regimes
and
practices
are
in
place
,
with
attention
to
the
right
of
victims
to
an
effective
remedy[9
]
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O