Online monitoring, filtering, blocking ... what is the difference? Where to draw the line?
Online monitoring, filtering, blocking ... what is the difference? Where to draw the line?
Filtering technologies were initially conceived as users’ friendly tools. But this did not last very long and the opacity of blocking software has progressively emerged. Indeed, the lists of blocked sites are not very often drawn in a transparent manner and even more they are most of the time kept secret. What is less often underlined is that filtering technologies in several cases operate as mechanisms of mass surveillance of online behaviour. The question is then why the imposition of a duty to systematically monitor information online has not really been seen as problematic by judges, be they national or supra-national. Two reasons at least can explain such an observation. First, the focus has been set upon the outcome legitimacy of the use of filtering technologies. This, however, hides a significant alteration of the prescription of the law and/or a transformation of its fundamental function. Second, the distinction between limited and general monitoring obligation has been progressively blurred so that the distinction between mass surveillance and targeted surveillance seem to have finally disappeared.
978-87-994854-1-3
702-712
Stalla-Bourdillon, Sophie
c189651b-9ed3-49f6-bf37-25a47c487164
December 2013
Stalla-Bourdillon, Sophie
c189651b-9ed3-49f6-bf37-25a47c487164
Stalla-Bourdillon, Sophie
(2013)
Online monitoring, filtering, blocking ... what is the difference? Where to draw the line?
Computer Law & Security Review, 29, .
Abstract
Filtering technologies were initially conceived as users’ friendly tools. But this did not last very long and the opacity of blocking software has progressively emerged. Indeed, the lists of blocked sites are not very often drawn in a transparent manner and even more they are most of the time kept secret. What is less often underlined is that filtering technologies in several cases operate as mechanisms of mass surveillance of online behaviour. The question is then why the imposition of a duty to systematically monitor information online has not really been seen as problematic by judges, be they national or supra-national. Two reasons at least can explain such an observation. First, the focus has been set upon the outcome legitimacy of the use of filtering technologies. This, however, hides a significant alteration of the prescription of the law and/or a transformation of its fundamental function. Second, the distinction between limited and general monitoring obligation has been progressively blurred so that the distinction between mass surveillance and targeted surveillance seem to have finally disappeared.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: December 2013
Organisations:
Southampton Law School
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 343349
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/343349
ISBN: 978-87-994854-1-3
ISSN: 2212-4748
PURE UUID: 5858d2aa-3850-435f-ab89-87a6c91b518a
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 02 Nov 2012 11:59
Last modified: 09 Jan 2022 03:35
Export record
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
