European Court of Human Rights

2,000 senior women win “biggest victory possible” in landmark climate case

climate change, climate inaction, European Court of Human Rights, Human rights, Policy, Switzerland / Ari B / April 9, 2024

Enlarge / Members of Swiss association Senior Women for Climate Protection react after the announcement of decisions after a hearing of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to decide in three separate cases if states are doing enough in the face of global warming in rulings that could force them to do more, in Strasbourg, eastern France, on April 9, 2024.

More than 2,000 older Swiss women have won a landmark European case proving that government climate inaction violates human rights.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled Tuesday that Switzerland had not acted urgently to achieve climate targets, leading victims, who are mostly in their 70s, to suffer physically and emotionally while potentially placed at risk of dying.

The women, part of a group called KlimaSeniorinnen (Senior Women for Climate Protection), filed the lawsuit nine years ago. They presented medical documents and scientific evidence that older women are more vulnerable to climate impacts, arguing that “their health and daily routines were affected” by Swiss heatwaves connected to climate change.

One woman who had to regularly measure her blood pressure and refrain from activities when temperatures were too high told the court that “the thermometer determined the way she led her life.” Another woman described how isolated she felt when “excessive heat” with “highly probable” links to climate change “exacerbated her asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

“Evidence showed that the life and health of older women were more severely impacted by periods of heatwaves than the rest of the population,” ECHR’s ruling said, noting that during recent warmest summers on record “nearly 90 percent of heat-related deaths had occurred in older women, almost all of whom were older than 75.”

The ECHR ruled that the Swiss government had violated these women’s rights to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to comply with climate duties or to address “critical gaps” in climate policies. Throughout the proceedings, Swiss authorities acknowledged missing climate targets, including by not properly supervising greenhouse gas emissions in sectors like building and transport, and not regulating emissions in other sectors such as agricultural and financial.

“There was a long history of failed climate action,” ECHR’s ruling said.

“This included a failure to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas emissions limitations,” ECHR President Siofra O’Leary said, noting in a Reuters report that Switzerland “had previously failed to meet its past greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by failing to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner.”

As a result of the ECHR ruling, Switzerland may be forced to escalate efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption, CNN reported.

Swiss President Viola Amherd told a news conference attended by Reuters that she would be reviewing the judgment, seemingly defending the country’s current climate actions by saying that “sustainability is very important to Switzerland, biodiversity is very important to Switzerland, the net zero target is very important to Switzerland.”

The court’s judgment is binding, cannot be appealed, and could “influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK,” the BBC reported. Experts told CNN that the case could also influence other international courts, potentially opening the floodgates to more climate litigation globally.

2,000 senior women win “biggest victory possible” in landmark climate case Read More »

Backdoors that let cops decrypt messages violate human rights, EU court says

csam, e2ee, email, end to end encryption, end-to-end, European Commission, European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice, European Union, Freedom of speech, Online Privacy, Policy, Private messaging, russia, telegram, Terrorism / Ari B / February 15, 2024

Enlarge / Building of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (France).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that weakening end-to-end encryption disproportionately risks undermining human rights. The international court’s decision could potentially disrupt the European Commission’s proposed plans to require email and messaging service providers to create backdoors that would allow law enforcement to easily decrypt users’ messages.

This ruling came after Russia’s intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service (FSS), began requiring Telegram to share users’ encrypted messages to deter “terrorism-related activities” in 2017, ECHR’s ruling said. A Russian Telegram user alleged that FSS’s requirement violated his rights to a private life and private communications, as well as all Telegram users’ rights.

The Telegram user was apparently disturbed, moving to block required disclosures after Telegram refused to comply with an FSS order to decrypt messages on six users suspected of terrorism. According to Telegram, “it was technically impossible to provide the authorities with encryption keys associated with specific users,” and therefore, “any disclosure of encryption keys” would affect the “privacy of the correspondence of all Telegram users,” the ECHR’s ruling said.

For refusing to comply, Telegram was fined, and one court even ordered the app to be blocked in Russia, while dozens of Telegram users rallied to continue challenging the order to maintain Telegram services in Russia. Ultimately, users’ multiple court challenges failed, sending the case before the ECHR while Telegram services seemingly tenuously remained available in Russia.

The Russian government told the ECHR that “allegations that the security services had access to the communications of all users” were “unsubstantiated” because their request only concerned six Telegram users.

They further argued that Telegram providing encryption keys to FSB “did not mean that the information necessary to decrypt encrypted electronic communications would become available to its entire staff.” Essentially, the government believed that FSB staff’s “duty of discretion” would prevent any intrusion on private life for Telegram users as described in the ECHR complaint.

Seemingly most critically, the government told the ECHR that any intrusion on private lives resulting from decrypting messages was “necessary” to combat terrorism in a democratic society. To back up this claim, the government pointed to a 2017 terrorist attack that was “coordinated from abroad through secret chats via Telegram.” The government claimed that a second terrorist attack that year was prevented after the government discovered it was being coordinated through Telegram chats.

However, privacy advocates backed up Telegram’s claims that the messaging services couldn’t technically build a backdoor for governments without impacting all its users. They also argued that the threat of mass surveillance could be enough to infringe on human rights. The European Information Society Institute (EISI) and Privacy International told the ECHR that even if governments never used required disclosures to mass surveil citizens, it could have a chilling effect on users’ speech or prompt service providers to issue radical software updates weakening encryption for all users.

In the end, the ECHR concluded that the Telegram user’s rights had been violated, partly due to privacy advocates and international reports that corroborated Telegram’s position that complying with the FSB’s disclosure order would force changes impacting all its users.

The “confidentiality of communications is an essential element of the right to respect for private life and correspondence,” the ECHR’s ruling said. Thus, requiring messages to be decrypted by law enforcement “cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.”

Martin Husovec, a law professor who helped to draft EISI’s testimony, told Ars that EISI is “obviously pleased that the Court has recognized the value of encryption and agreed with us that state-imposed weakening of encryption is a form of indiscriminate surveillance because it affects everyone’s privacy.”

Backdoors that let cops decrypt messages violate human rights, EU court says Read More »