The Care and Shelter of Children and Adolescents in Brazil: Expressions of Social Issues

The future of Brazilian children who have the protection offered by familial bonds is threatened by social inequities that force them to seek shelter and grow up in shelters. According to the Institute of Applied Economic Research, an estimated 20,000 children and adolescents are served by institutions. The majority of these children are afro-descendent males between the ages of seven and fifteen years old. Of those researched, 87.6% have families (58.2% receive visits from their families, 22.7% are rarely visited by their families and 5.8 are legally prohibited from contacting or being by their families). The percentage of children and adolescents “without families” or with “missing families” is 11.3%. There is no information available for 2% of the children and adolescents residing in shelters. The principle factors that necessitate the placement of Brazilian children in institutions that provide care and shelter include poverty (including children forced to work, sell drugs or beg, for example); domestic violence; chemical dependence of parents or guardians; homelessness; death or parents or guardian; imprisonment of their parents; and sexual abuse committed by their parents or guardians. The issue of abandoned children and adolescents and their care and shelter in the Brazilian context expresses a perverse violation of Child and Adolescent Rights.

Kontent i Pravo v. Masterhost Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment of 23 December 2008, Nr. 10962/08 Translation and Comment

This Judgment by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation can be considered as a landmark ruling for Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) liability. The Court stipulates for the first time concise principles under which circumstances an ISP shall be exempt from liability for transmitting copyright infringing content. But due to the legislation on ISP liability in the Russian Federation it depends on the type of information which rules of liability apply to ISP. As far as a violation of intellectual property rights is claimed, the principles given now by the Supreme Arbitration Court are applicable, which basically follow the liability limitations of the so called EU E-Commerce Directive. But, furthermore, preventive measures that are provided in service provider contracts to suppress a violation through the use of services should be taken into account as well. On the other hand, as far as other information is concerned the limitations of the respective Information Law might be applicable which stipulates different liability requirements. This article gives a translation of the Supreme Arbitration Court’s decision as well as a comment on its key rulings with respect to the legal framework and on possible consequences for practice.

Privacy in the Post-NSA Era: Time for a Fundamental Revision?

Big Brother Watch and others have filed a complaint against the United Kingdom under the European Convention on Human Rights about a violation of Article 8, the right to privacy. It regards the NSA affair and UK-based surveillance activities operated by secret services. The question is whether it will be declared admissible and, if so, whether the European Court of Human Rights will find a violation. This article discusses three possible challenges for these types of complaints and analyses whether the current privacy paradigm is still adequate in view of the development known as Big Data.

Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden?

On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension.