Children have no right to privacy
Source: Mika Baumeister on Unsplash
Spanish court ruling gives parents permission to read their children’s WhatsApp messages
The mother argued that her ex-husband had breached Spain's privacy laws by checking his nine-year-old's messages
A father who was sued by his ex-wife for reading his two children’s WhatsApp conversations has been cleared by a court in northern Spain.The mother claimed at a court in Pontevedra on 26 December that her daughter’s privacy had been breached by her ex-husband, after he ordered his children to hand over their mobile phones so he could read their WhatsApp messages.
The unnamed woman told Spanish daily newspaper El Español: “Both children told me that their father put them in a room and went through his daughter's conversations on her mobile phone.
When he asked his son to give him his mobile, he said no.” The father allegedly threatened his son with the police if he did not give up his password.
An earlier lower court in Pontevedra sided with the mother after she argued that her ex-husband’s actions had gone against Spain’s privacy laws.
However, the higher court said that the claim conflicted with Article 154 of the country’s civil code which relates to parental responsibilities.
Article 154 states that parents have an obligation to educate their children and provide them with an integral education.
The judge then ruled: “The development of social networks, as well as WhatsApp, requires attention and vigilance of parents to preserve the safety of minors.”
The mother was told to pay all legal costs.
The case comes amid other rulings by Spanish courts on the use of WhatsApp.
In 2016, a woman was found guilty of slander in Galicia last year for words in her WhatsApp status which alluded to her former partner. According to Spain’s civil code, chat messages via email, SMS and WhatsApp can be presented as evidence in court.
But the case could also affect international precedent, given the context of ongoing global debate over how much access law enforcement agencies are entitled to digital communication.
In 2016, the FBI attempted to coerce Apple into unlocking a phone which belonged to San Bernadino shooter Syed Farouk, but ultimately failed.
In the wake of the case, Facebook introduced end-to-end encryption for the messaging service, ensuring that law enforcement would not be able to read the messages even if they won legal access to them.
“The idea is simple: when you send a message, the only person who can read it is the person or group chat that you send that message to. No one can see inside that message,” WhatsApp wrote in a blog post.
“Not cybercriminals. Not hackers. Not oppressive regimes. Not even us.”
Comments
I agree with the lower court of Pontevedra, but I don't agree with the higher court. In my opinion, the mother has reason because her ex-husband had breached Spain´s privacy laws when he checked his nine-year-old´s messages. He ordered his children to hand over their mobil phones so he could read their WhatsApp messages. But it´s cleared that he wanted to read WhastsApp messages between his children and his ex-wife.
The higher court has made a big mistake because article 154 of the Spanish civil code doesn´t state that parents can read WatsApp messages of children. This article 154 states that parental authority will practice to benefit of children according to their personality and it includes the duty of looking after them, keeping then company, feeding them, bringing them up and giving them integral formation. Where is WatsApp or networks in article 154?
The Spanish civil code was published in 1889 and, of course, it didn´t regulate WatsApp. Then, if you want to know what is true o false to bring up, you must act to benefit of children. It means that you have to respect for their intimacy. My intimacy is my thoughts, my letters, my writtens, my talks, my dreams, my researchs and so on.
The judges of the higher court should check thoughts of their children to they don´t think bad. My parents never read my writtens when I was minor and I never read letters or writtens of my children.
Bringing up comprehends to give references to children so they choose what they must do and they must avoid, but checking their intimacy is a lack of respect.
Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution states that it guarantees the right of personal intimacy and its article 39 states that official authority mush assure integral protection of children. That is, everybody is entitled to personal intimacy (even children) and official authority must enforce this right.
See you.
I agree that in this case, the father may have wanted to read the messages between his kids and their mother.
However, in many cases, a parent needs to be able to access their kids' messages on social networks. Only then can they discover what their child is really up to and perhaps, save them from danger.
... In my opinion, the mother is right because her ex-husband had breached Spain´s privacy laws when he checked his nine-year-old´s messages. He ordered his children to hand over their mobile phones so he could read their WhatsApp messages. But it´s clear that he wanted to read WhastsApp messages between his children and his ex-wife.
The higher court has made a big mistake because article 154 of the Spanish civil code doesn´t state that parents can read WhatsApp messages of their children. Article 154 states that parental authority will benefit children according to their personality and it includes the duty of looking after them, keeping them company, feeding them, bringing them up and giving them integral education. Where does it mention WhatsApp or social networks in article 154?
The Spanish civil code was published in 1889 and, of course, it didn´t regulate WhatsApp. Then, if you want to know what the rights and wrongs of bringing up a child are, you must act so as to benefit the children. It means that you have to respect their intimacy. My intimacy is my thoughts, my letters, my writtens, my talks, my dreams, my researchs and so on.
The judges of the higher court should check the thoughts of their children to see that they aren't bad. My parents never read what I wrote when I was a child and I never read letters or anything my children wrote.
Bringing up children means giving them references so they choose what they must do and what they must avoid, but checking their intimacy is a lack of respect.
Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution states that it guarantees the right of personal intimacy and article 39 states that official authority must assure integral protection of children. That is, everybody is entitled to personal intimacy (even children) and official authority must enforce this right.
Not only can kids access to inappropriate information, but also be manipulated by adults.
In the wake of the case, the mother shouldn´t claimed at a court, because its quite normal that a father want to control what do his son. But the manners of the father were rude, I guess. The mother was told to pay all legal costs, it´s sound a little bit excessive.
Nowhere else could facebook breach a court resolution. Seldom did they heard about the possibility of a court can ask them for information, the thought about how not to hand over. Not since Facebook start to have the data control will they allow to loss it.
I get the feeling that the father in this case just wanted to see the messages between mother and daughter. However, it wasn't necessary to go to court over it. The mother's lawyer would have been laughing all the way to the bank.
Sometimes it´s difficult to know the limits of the laws. I agree that parents should have control of their children's communications because there is a lot of dangerous material on the net.
Not only can kids access inappropriate information, but (they can) also be groomed by adults.
In the wake of the case, the mother shouldn´t have gone to court, because its quite normal that a father wants to control what his child does. But the manners of the father were rude, I guess. The mother was told to pay all legal costs, it´s sound a little bit excessive.
Nowhere else could Facebook breach a court resolution.
Seldom did they hear about the possibility of a court asking them for information. They thought about how not to hand it over.
Not since Facebook started to have control of data have they allowed us to lose it. (struggling to understand what you mean with this last sentence)
I'll send you a couple of exercises to practise Negative Inversion.