The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Fitbit health data, Apple’s geodata and Google searches: cross-border law enforcement and the territoriality principle

Fitbit health data, Apple’s geodata and Google searches: cross-border law enforcement and the territoriality principle
Fitbit health data, Apple’s geodata and Google searches: cross-border law enforcement and the territoriality principle
Statecraft in the digital age is not business as usual. Much as access to personal data has presented unprecedented opportunities for commercial actors, it also promises a wide and diverse spectrum of regulatory uses for State authority, especially law enforcement agencies. These range from using personal health or geo-data from mobile phones in criminal prosecutions to the pre-emptive monitoring of social media to predict criminal or disorderly activity from terrorism to low-level anti-social conduct or political or environmental protests. Yet, much as globalised communications and commerce raised questions about which State could regulate them, the quest for access to the data reservoirs of global platforms has now triggered equivalent questions vis-à-vis globalised law enforcement activities. This chapter situates crossborder law enforcement activities within the territoriality principle; it argues that prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction under international law are not alternatives that match onto legislative activities and law enforcement actions at the domestic level but apply cumulatively to the exercise of any State authority. By implication, as long as extraterritorial claims or demands (prescriptive jurisdiction) are - as an exercise of State authority - made or actioned within the State territory (enforcement jurisdiction), no objections on the ground of a violation of territorial sovereignty may be raised. So extraterritorial data requests made or performed in the territory of the requesting State are unexceptional. Even in so far as they are factual interferences in the territory of another State, the preoccupation of enforcement jurisdiction with prohibiting displays of State functions in another State means that it is rarely engaged by data interventions.
191-218
Hart
Kohl, Uta
813ff335-441f-4027-801b-4e6fc48409c3
Ó Floinn, Micheál
Farmer, Lindsay
Hörnle, Julia
Ormerod, David
Kohl, Uta
813ff335-441f-4027-801b-4e6fc48409c3
Ó Floinn, Micheál
Farmer, Lindsay
Hörnle, Julia
Ormerod, David

Kohl, Uta (2023) Fitbit health data, Apple’s geodata and Google searches: cross-border law enforcement and the territoriality principle. In, Ó Floinn, Micheál, Farmer, Lindsay, Hörnle, Julia and Ormerod, David (eds.) Transformations in Criminal Jurisdiction : Extraterritoriality and Enforcement. Hart, pp. 191-218.

Record type: Book Section

Abstract

Statecraft in the digital age is not business as usual. Much as access to personal data has presented unprecedented opportunities for commercial actors, it also promises a wide and diverse spectrum of regulatory uses for State authority, especially law enforcement agencies. These range from using personal health or geo-data from mobile phones in criminal prosecutions to the pre-emptive monitoring of social media to predict criminal or disorderly activity from terrorism to low-level anti-social conduct or political or environmental protests. Yet, much as globalised communications and commerce raised questions about which State could regulate them, the quest for access to the data reservoirs of global platforms has now triggered equivalent questions vis-à-vis globalised law enforcement activities. This chapter situates crossborder law enforcement activities within the territoriality principle; it argues that prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction under international law are not alternatives that match onto legislative activities and law enforcement actions at the domestic level but apply cumulatively to the exercise of any State authority. By implication, as long as extraterritorial claims or demands (prescriptive jurisdiction) are - as an exercise of State authority - made or actioned within the State territory (enforcement jurisdiction), no objections on the ground of a violation of territorial sovereignty may be raised. So extraterritorial data requests made or performed in the territory of the requesting State are unexceptional. Even in so far as they are factual interferences in the territory of another State, the preoccupation of enforcement jurisdiction with prohibiting displays of State functions in another State means that it is rarely engaged by data interventions.

Text
Chapter 8
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 23 November 2022
Published date: 23 August 2023

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 472403
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/472403
PURE UUID: 1e308e3b-578a-4f1b-949e-ecf6d740785e
ORCID for Uta Kohl: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8616-9469

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Dec 2022 17:35
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 03:13

Export record

Contributors

Author: Uta Kohl ORCID iD
Editor: Micheál Ó Floinn
Editor: Lindsay Farmer
Editor: Julia Hörnle
Editor: David Ormerod

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×