English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Book

Access to Telecommunication Data in Criminal Justice : A Comparative Analysis of European Legal Orders

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons212336

Sieber,  Ulrich
Criminal Law, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons212365

von zur Mühlen,  Nicolas
Criminal Law, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Max Planck Society;
Section Information Law and Legal Informatics, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Sieber, U., & von zur Mühlen, N. (Eds.). (2016). Access to Telecommunication Data in Criminal Justice: A Comparative Analysis of European Legal Orders. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002E-39B6-2
Abstract
Access to telecommunication data is an essential and powerful investigative tool in criminal justice. At the same time, the interception of such data can seriously affect individual privacy. This is true not only with respect to content data but with respect to traffic data as well. The legal instruments and provisions that allow the gathering of these data are primarily the traditional rules on the interception of telecommunication based on the cooperation duties of telecommunication providers. In addition, access to telecommunication data can also be granted by rules on remote forensic software, by search and seizure of – temporarily or permanently – stored data, and (esp. in cases of traffic and subscriber data) by production orders demanding the delivery of stored data. The rules governing these interception techniques vary considerably among the national legal orders. These differences are not only most interesting from the perspective of fundamental research in the area of comparative criminal law but also for practical reasons, such as identifying best practices and evaluating the scope of international cooperation. This publication provides a comparative analysis dealing with the commonalities and differences of these rules on interception and other means of access to telecommunication data. It also includes country reports on the following European legal orders on which this comparison is based: Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.