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
Kohl, Uta
813ff335-441f-4027-801b-4e6fc48409c3
23 August 2023
Kohl, Uta
813ff335-441f-4027-801b-4e6fc48409c3
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, .
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.
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
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 05 Dec 2022 17:35
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 03:13
Export record
Contributors
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