GLONASS and GPS monitoring of people: Is it legal?
Recently, the popularity of using satellite monitoring systems can be explained not only by how effectively they optimize logistic processes or allow reducing risks when stealing a car, but also by how convenient and effective they are for tracking people.
As a rule, satellite monitoring is used to control children, adolescents, spouses, as well as elderly relatives. Sometimes GPS, and more recently, GLONASS systems are also used by employers who suspect their employees of a lack of good faith. Naturally, the proliferation of these technologies poses a number of questions to society regarding their ethicality, as well as legality. And if in matters of ethics one can argue endlessly, then it would seem that a definite answer can be found to the question whether this contradicts legislation. This issue was raised and discussed repeatedly, for example, heated debates can be observed in specialized forums (for example, here ), companies, operators and integrators of monitoring systems share their thoughts on the ethics and legitimacy of using satellite monitoring with each other.
You can start with the basic law of the state of the Constitution. According to Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus: Everyone has the right to protection from unlawful interference with his personal life, including from encroachment on the secrecy of his correspondence, telephone and other communications, on his honor and dignity. Thus, the right to privacy, as well as freedom of movement (Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus) are inalienable, inherent rights. They are enshrined both at the level of human rights and at the level of the Constitutions of different countries. For example, Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: 1. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of his honor and good name. 2. Everyone has the right to confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other communications. Restriction of this right is allowed only on the basis of a court decision.
')
Thus, it can be stated with sufficient confidence that, from the point of view of generally accepted civil rights and freedoms, monitoring violates the right to privacy. Since restriction of this right, both in the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus and in the Constitution of the Russian Federation is allowed only in the case of investigative or investigative actions, there is no legal justification for supplying family members with personal GPS trackers (which does not affect the popularity of their use: to Wialon alone “Almost 10,000 different personal trackers and 90,000 automotive trackers are connected. And it remains a mystery whether these thousands of people are aware of what is being watched - whether they are mobile workers, elderly people or wives with mistresses :). At the same time, the right to privacy is one of the inalienable freedoms enshrined in legal practice, and therefore, it is enjoyed by both young children and elderly people, regardless of their state of health.
As a result, it can be concluded that monitoring people at least violates the Russian Constitution and the Convention on Human Rights .
At the same time, the legislation of Belarus does not provide for any punishment for the use of satellite monitoring, which means that this action cannot be called unlawful. This is a classic situation when the development of technologies and public relations is ahead of the creation of a legal framework designed to regulate them.
So, at this stage, everyone can make a personal decision about whether to use a satellite monitoring system to track people.
Would you use something knowing that it is contrary to human rights and the Constitution?
As a rule, satellite monitoring is used to control children, adolescents, spouses, as well as elderly relatives. Sometimes GPS, and more recently, GLONASS systems are also used by employers who suspect their employees of a lack of good faith. Naturally, the proliferation of these technologies poses a number of questions to society regarding their ethicality, as well as legality. And if in matters of ethics one can argue endlessly, then it would seem that a definite answer can be found to the question whether this contradicts legislation. This issue was raised and discussed repeatedly, for example, heated debates can be observed in specialized forums (for example, here ), companies, operators and integrators of monitoring systems share their thoughts on the ethics and legitimacy of using satellite monitoring with each other.
You can start with the basic law of the state of the Constitution. According to Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus: Everyone has the right to protection from unlawful interference with his personal life, including from encroachment on the secrecy of his correspondence, telephone and other communications, on his honor and dignity. Thus, the right to privacy, as well as freedom of movement (Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus) are inalienable, inherent rights. They are enshrined both at the level of human rights and at the level of the Constitutions of different countries. For example, Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: 1. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of his honor and good name. 2. Everyone has the right to confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other communications. Restriction of this right is allowed only on the basis of a court decision.')
Thus, it can be stated with sufficient confidence that, from the point of view of generally accepted civil rights and freedoms, monitoring violates the right to privacy. Since restriction of this right, both in the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus and in the Constitution of the Russian Federation is allowed only in the case of investigative or investigative actions, there is no legal justification for supplying family members with personal GPS trackers (which does not affect the popularity of their use: to Wialon alone “Almost 10,000 different personal trackers and 90,000 automotive trackers are connected. And it remains a mystery whether these thousands of people are aware of what is being watched - whether they are mobile workers, elderly people or wives with mistresses :). At the same time, the right to privacy is one of the inalienable freedoms enshrined in legal practice, and therefore, it is enjoyed by both young children and elderly people, regardless of their state of health.
As a result, it can be concluded that monitoring people at least violates the Russian Constitution and the Convention on Human Rights .
At the same time, the legislation of Belarus does not provide for any punishment for the use of satellite monitoring, which means that this action cannot be called unlawful. This is a classic situation when the development of technologies and public relations is ahead of the creation of a legal framework designed to regulate them.
So, at this stage, everyone can make a personal decision about whether to use a satellite monitoring system to track people.
Would you use something knowing that it is contrary to human rights and the Constitution?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/147189/
All Articles