Slaves as criminal informers in ancient Rome

The Romans expected slaves to inform on their fellow slaves, particularly in regard to the master's safety. If a slave killed his master, a terrible retribution on the entire household of slaves would have to be paid to atone for the offense. In the final analysis, the slave‐informer system, with all of its drawbacks, supported the Roman criminal justice system nearly 1,000 years and the Byzantines employed it in a modified form. This paper is a case study of how a culture, with its values, musters its resources, in the case of slavery, to cope with the problems of internal security.

With most of the crime problems that confront us today, the ancient Romans were hard put to protect the public peace. They had neither the modern technology nor the forensic science that we do, so they utilized the limited resources they had to prevent crimes and catch criminals. They devised a policy of enticing slaves to act as criminal informants with the offer of freedom. Considering the sizeable adult slave population, this policy greatly deterred crime and the saying “Every slave, an enemy” became current among the citizenry.

The Romans, however, did not intend to open a door by which slaves could accuse citizens of false charges out of vindictiveness. The legal‐minded Romans adopted the safeguard of having the slave informant interrogated under torture.

Slaves also served the criminal justice system in other ways besides volunteering information. When the police were stymied in an investigation, they “rounded up the usual suspects” in the form of slaves who might have knowledge of the crime, but for some reason had not stepped forward. The police would use their powers to interrogate slaves in this case, too. This ancient practice reflects the procedure of modern police investigators checking surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the crime scene in the hopes of discovering a clue.     

The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’

The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation has caused a wide debate between lawyers and legal scholars and many opinions have been voiced on the issue of the right to be forgotten. In order to analyse the relevance of the new rule provided by Article 17 of the Proposal, this paper considers the original idea of the right to be forgotten, pre-existing in both European and U.S. legal frameworks. This article focuses on the new provisions of Article 17 of the EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and evaluates its effects on court decisions. The author assumes that the new provisions do not seem to represent a revolutionary change to the existing rules with regard to the right granted to the individual, but instead have an impact on the extension of the protection of the information disseminated on-line.     

An analysis of traditional rules applied by Australian courts to establish personal jurisdiction and their application in e-commerce

This article analyses the jurisdictional principles employed by Australian courts in establishing personal jurisdiction in traditional settings and its extension to e-commerce cases. The Australian courts apply the court rules to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants. The article discusses these rules relating to serving process within and outside Australia and jurisdiction based on the submission of the parties. The adequacies of principles like forum-non-conveniens, forum selection clauses which are vital in the personal jurisdiction inquiry are analysed. The unique High Court decision in Dow Jones v. Gutnick is discussed and the approach followed by the court critically analysed to highlight the excessive exercise of personal jurisdiction. Other cases concerning the internet are also discussed to highlight the approaches followed to establish personal jurisdiction in internet and e-commerce cases. It is argued that the drawbacks highlight the need for legislation to regulate personal jurisdiction in e-commerce cases.     

Opening up personal data protection: A conceptual controversy

The existence of a fundamental right to the protection of personal data in European Union (EU) law is nowadays undisputed. Established in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000, it is increasingly permeating EU secondary law, and is expected to play a key role in the future EU personal data protection landscape. The right's reinforced visibility has rendered manifest the co-existence of two possible and contrasting interpretations as to what it come to mean. If some envision it as a primarily permissive right, enabling the processing of such data under certain conditions, others picture it as having a prohibitive nature, implying that any processing of data is a limitation of the right, be it legitimate or illegitimate. This paper investigates existing tensions between different understandings of the right to the protection of personal data, and explores the assumptions and conceptual legacies underlying both approaches. It traces their historical lineages, and, focusing on the right to personal data protection as established by the EU Charter, analyses the different arguments that can ground contrasted readings of its Article 8. It also reviews the conceptualisations of personal data protection as present in the literature, and finally contrasts all these perspectives with the construal of the right by the EU Court of Justice.     

It wasn't all white light before Prism: Law enforcement practices in gathering data abroad,and proposals for further transnational access at the Council of Europe

This is a brief comment on a meeting held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, which discussed ways of improving transnational access to data by law enforcement through the Cybercrime Convention. In particular, the possible introduction of a new protocol, and a guidance note on art. 32(b), were considered. It is argued that there are serious concerns with both proposals. Moreover, the meeting revealed a surprising lack of knowledge as to current levels of cooperation between law enforcement and foreign service providers.     

Measurement of Postmortem Pupil Size: A New Method with Excellent Reliability and Its Application to Pupil Changes in the Early Postmortem Period

Measurement of postmortem pupil width is a potential component of death time estimation. However, no standardized measurement method has been described. We analyzed a total of 71 digital images for pupil–iris ratio using the software ImageJ. Images were analyzed three times by four different examiners. In addition, serial images from 10 cases were taken between 2 and 50 h postmortem to detect spontaneous pupil changes. Intra‐ and inter‐rater reliability of the method was excellent (ICC > 0.95). The method is observer independent and yields consistent results, and images can be digitally stored and re‐evaluated. The method seems highly eligible for forensic and scientific purposes. While statistical analysis of spontaneous pupil changes revealed a significant polynomial of quartic degree for postmortem time (p = 0.001), an obvious pattern was not detected. These results do not indicate suitability of spontaneous pupil changes for forensic death time estimation, as formerly suggested.     

An academic perspective on the copyright reform

The recently proposed new Copyright Directive was released on 14 September 2016. It has been described by EU law-makers as the pillar of the copyright package promised by the European Commission (EC), to be delivered before the end of Mr. Juncker's mandate. In its Communication of 6 May 2015, the EC had stressed “the importance to enhance cross-border access to copyright-protected content services, facilitate new uses in the fields of research and education, and clarify the role of online services in the distribution of works and other subject-matter.” The proposed Copyright Directive is thus a key measure aiming to address two of these three issues. However it is not without shortfalls.We have therefore decided to publicly express our concerns and send an open letter to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to urge them to re-assess the new provisions dealing with mandatory filtering of user-generated content in the light of the CJEU case law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.In a more extended statement, we examine in details the text of both the explanatory memorandum and the Directive itself.Our conclusions are:1. A comprehensive re-assessment of Article 13 and Recital 39 in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the E-commerce Directive (in particular Article 15) including CJEU case law is needed, as the proposed Copyright Directive does not expressly address the issue of its compatibility with both of these texts.2. Recital 38 does not clarify the domain and effect of Article 13. Rather, it creates confusion as it goes against settled CJEU case law (relating to Articles 14 and 15 of the E-commerce Directive and Article 3 of the Infosoc Directive). Recital 38 should therefore be deleted or substantially re-drafted/re-phrased. If the EU wants to introduce a change in this regard it should clearly justify its choice. In any case, a recital in the preamble to a directive is not an appropriate tool to achieve this effect.We hope that this exercise will prove useful for the debate that has now begun both in the European Parliament and in the Council.     

Rechtsfolgen fehlerhafter Willensbildungsakte der Eigentümergemeinschaft nach dem WEG 2002

Der Wortlaut des § 24 Abs 6 Satz 1 WEG 2002 l?sst die unterschiedlichen Rechtsfolgen fehlerhafter Willensbildungsvorg?nge der Eigentümergemeinschaft nicht erkennen. Der folgende Beitrag versucht, fehlerhafte Willensbildungsvorg?nge im Einklang mit dem allgemeinen Verbandsrecht zu kategorisieren.