Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 augustus 2016

Onder 7.23 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 augustus 2016

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 augustus 2016, ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:885.

59. The monitoring of the actions of an individual in a public place by the use of photographic equipment which does not record the visual data does not, as such, give rise to an interference with the individual's private life (…). On the other hand, the recording of the data and the systematic or permanent nature of the record may give rise to such considerations. Accordingly, in both the Rotaru and Amann judgments (to which the P.G. and J.H. judgment referred) the compilation of data by security services on particular individuals even without the use of covert surveillance methods constituted an interference with the applicants' private lives (Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000-V, and Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 2000-II). While the permanent recording of the voices of P.G. and J.H. was made while they answered questions in police cell as police officers listened to them, the recording of their voices for further analysis was regarded as the processing of personal data about them amounting to an interference with their right to respect for their private lives (the above-cited P.G. and J.H. judgment, at §§ 59-60).

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/8bf4d7b1990230b2edee627b0e0386cbd5fdeb8175e08bce5f9c977adc10281e. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 8bf4d7b1990230b2edee627b0e0386cbd5fdeb8175e08bce5f9c977adc10281e, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 151232 tot 152436.