[ad_1]
Entry 2020.11.12 18:31 | Revision 2020.11.12 18:43
Let’s pour out criticism … 秋 “How to effectively protect digital evidence”
The Investigative Authority Regulation Act (RIPA), a British legislative act proposed by Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae as the basis for revising the so-called “ Han Dong-hoon sanctions bill ” was found to , it was actually enacted for national security purposes such as fighting terrorism. It is noted that, in fact, it is “unreasonable” to apply the legislation that applies to the case of a serious crime that violates national security or commits a serious crime to a prosecutor who is a suspect in the “case of Channel A”.
The RIPA, on which Minister Chu relied, was a decree with the consent of the British royal family on July 28, 2000, and according to article 49 of the same law, investigative agencies such as the police British authorities could request authorization of personal electronic devices such as smartphone passwords. In particular, when they requested a password, they were required to obtain written permission from a judge or district court. It is the same authority as a court order to seize and search smartphones.
However, this was only allowed to a very limited extent. ▲ National security ▲ Violation of taxes and fees ▲ Violation of borders ▲ Security leak of key national information. However, there is still room for “invasion of privacy”, which is a controversial law in the UK.
When Minister Chu said that he would apply the bill to Han Dong-hoon’s case and review the enactment of the law, it was noted that the Ministry of Justice vigorously applied the case of a prosecutor’s office without properly reviewing the bill.
A lawyer working in the UK said: “In the case of the UK, we know that the law applies to people who want to enter the UK, such as airports and ports.” This is the case when it appears to be “.
In the legal world, the criticism was criticized for being ‘anti-constitutional’ as contrary to the golden rule of the constitution and the ‘principle of prohibition of excess’ that could legally reject statements that are unfavorable to them.
It is analyzed that the act of sanctioning for not presenting a mobile phone password violates the constitutional norms of excess monetary support for the so-called ‘excessive response’ and violates the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, it is argued that the right not to reveal mobile phone numbers should be considered part of the constitutional right to refuse to testify.
Lawyer Kim Jong-min (Dongin Law Firm), former head of Suncheon branch, said: “If you use excessive means compared to the purpose we are pursuing, it violates the principle of prohibition of excess” and “reject it because a cell phone it contains everything for one person. ” It is a legitimate act without legal problems, “he said.
“If the (restriction bill) is absolutely necessary, it should be used for extremely limited organized crimes, such as anti-state criminals, terrorists and mob investigations,” he said. “It is impossible to review the legislation that generalizes this.”
While criticism of the ‘Han Dong-hoon sanctions law’ continued, Minister Chu, aware of this, posted a post on his Facebook to explain that similar legislative practices exist abroad. Minister Chu said: “Even in human rights countries, France, the Netherlands and Australia have a legal system that punishes criminal penalties for not complying with requests for decryption or decryption. We must urgently introduce effective measures for seizure and search for digital evidence. I think it is. “
However, there is more criticism that Minister Chu’s clarification is that the prosecution was designated as a ‘suspect’ and the noise derived from unreasonable investigations was in the name of the ‘development of criminal law in the digital age’. A lawyer official criticized “It sounds absurd to talk about the development of the criminal law system in the digital age, saying that human rights violations that apply only to critical issues such as national security apply to the case of ‘Channel A’ “.
Deputy Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, who was previously charged with “self-directed assault,” confiscated only the iPhone of one of the prosecutors and was unable to confiscate the SIM. This iPhone has a password.
In response, Prosecutor Han sent a statement to reporters on the morning of that day, saying: “The right to defend is a constitutional right, but the Minister of Justice, which should be a bastion of the constitution and the protection of human rights, described the exercise of the party’s constitutional rights as ‘malicious’ “. “I am ashamed to publicly criticize it and make laws to prevent it.”
