February 2024 - cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Meta Unlikely To Beat Most Of BIPA Suit Over Voiceprints
by Gunnar Larson 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

Meta Unlikely To Beat Most Of BIPA Suit Over Voiceprints <https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1806309?nl_pk=2bd720dd-746c-4744…> By Bonnie Eslinger A California federal judge on Friday said she's inclined to deny the bulk of Meta Platforms Inc.'s request to dismiss a proposed biometric privacy class action claiming the social media company collects and stores customer voiceprints through its Facebook and Messenger platforms in violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1806309?nl_pk=2bd720dd-746c-4744…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1806309?nl_pk=2bd720dd-746c-4744…>

1 0

Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2024-040-00099 Submitted to Department of Education (DOE) Request Title: Mayor Adams Announces Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies
by Gunnar Larson 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <donotreply(a)records.nyc.gov> Date: Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 9:03 AM Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2024-040-00099 Submitted to Department of Education (DOE) To: <g(a)xny.io> Your request FOIL-2024-040-00099 has been successfully submitted to the Department of Education (DOE). The details of your request are shown below. Request Title: Mayor Adams Announces Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Request Description: Dear Madam or Sir: New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently announced the filing of a lawsuit to hold five social media platforms – TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and YouTube – accountable for fueling the nationwide youth mental health crisis: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/press-releases/2024/2024-02-1… xNY.io - Bank.org kindly seeks records pertaining to the lawsuit and Section 1. Subchapter 1 of chapter 1 of title 3 of the administrative code of the city of New York, section 3-119.5 ( https://intro.nyc/local-laws/2022-35) in relation to reporting on algorithmic tools used by city agencies . § 3-119.5 Annual reporting on algorithmic tools. a. For purposes of this section, the term “algorithmic tool” means any technology or computerized process that is derived from machine learning, artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, or other similar methods of data analysis, that is used to make or assist in making decisions about and implementing policies that materially impact the rights, liberties, benefits, safety or interests of the public, including their access to available city services and resources for which they may be eligible. Such term includes, but is not limited to tools that analyze datasets to generate risk scores, make predictions about behavior, or develop classifications or categories that determine what resources are allocated to particular groups or individuals, and does not materially affect the rights, liberties, benefits, safety or interests of the public. b. Each agency shall report to the mayor’s office of operations, or any other office or agency designated by the mayor, no later than December 31 of every year, every algorithmic tool that the agency has used one or more times during the prior calendar year. c. Each agency shall provide the following information about each algorithmic tool reported pursuant to subdivision b of this section: 1. The name or commercial name, and a brief description of such algorithmic tool; 2. The purpose for which the agency is using such an algorithmic tool; 3. The type of data collected or analyzed by the algorithmic tool and the source of such data; 4. A description of how the information received from such algorithmic tool is used; 5. Whether a vendor or contractor was involved in the development or ongoing use of the algorithmic tool, a description of such involvement, and the name of such vendor or contractor when feasible; and 6. The month and year in which such algorithmic tool began to be used, if known. d. The mayor’s office of operations, or any other office or agency designated by the mayor, shall compile the information received pursuant to subdivisions b and c of this section and report it to the mayor and the speaker of the council, disaggregated by agency. Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 917-580-8053 Requester's Contact Information *Name:* Gunnar Larson *Title:* Co-Founder *Organization:* xNY.io - Bank.org *Email:* g(a)xny.io *Phone Number:* Not provided *Fax Number:* Not provided *Street Address (line 1):* 406 West 25th Street *Street Address (line 2):* Not provided *City:* New York *State:* NY *Zip Code:* 10001 You can view the request and take any necessary action at the following webpage: https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2024-040-00099.

1 0

Your Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") Request FOIL-2023-095358-021587 - Robinhood BitLicense Records Appeal - NY-DFS
by Gunnar Larson 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 2:21 PM Subject: Fwd: Your Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") Request FOIL-2023-095358-021587 - Robinhood BitLicense Records Appeal - NY-DFS To: Mazza, Stephanie (DFS) <Stephanie.Mazza(a)dfs.ny.gov> Cc: Reader, Shaun <sreader(a)curtis.com>, <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov>, < Recordsaccessofficer(a)dfs.ny.gov>, <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> In accordance with Public Officers Law § 89(4), xNY.io - Bank.org elects to appeal this determination to withhold the Robinhood BitLicense Records. Turn this matter as we will, any side whatsoever appears to require obstruction of justice. We further demand NY-DFS send xNY.io - Bank.org an update on the aforementioned appeal within five (5) business days. Reserving all rights, xNY.io - Bank.org is seeking relevant relief in California on Robinhood. Warm regards, Gunnar ---- SENT VIA EMAIL Email: G(a)xny.io February 21, 2024 Mr. Gunnar Larson xNY.io – Bank.org 406 West 25th Street New York, NY 10001 Re: Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Tracking No. 2023-095358 Dear Mr. Larson, I write in response to the FOIL request that you submitted to the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department”), which has been assigned the above-referenced tracking number and reads as follows: Dear Madam or Sir: On August 2, 2022 the Superintendent of Financial Services Adrienne A. Harris announced that Robinhood Crypto, LLC (“RHC”) would pay a $30 million penalty to New York State for significant failures in the areas of bank secrecy act/anti-money laundering (“BSA/AML”) obligations and cybersecurity that resulted in violations of the Department’s Virtual Currency Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 200), Money Transmitter Regulation (3 NYCRR Part 417), Transaction Monitoring Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 504), and Cybersecurity Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 500). xNY.io - Bank.org would like to 1. receive any and all records related to NY-DFS' investigation of Robinhood Crypto. Including (but not limited to) records concerning the bespoke Supervisory Agreement Robinhood Crypto has with the Department of Financial Services mentioned here: https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202208021. 2. In addition, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks any and all records concerning New York's approach to Robinhood Crypto and Goldman Sachs compliance programs mandated by the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section mentioned here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yx88RMoeLyyfbNK0RtPl4r- m8N21_1Sp/view?usp=drivesdk. 3. Finally, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks records concerning New York's regulatory approval of Robinhood Crypto engaging a fine of $30M to implement heightened controls and additional procedures and policies relating to electronic surveillance and investigation, due diligence on transactions or clients and the use of third-party intermediaries across business units; and enhancing anti-corruption training for all management and relevant employees. To the extent the request is reasonably described, the Department construes the request as seeking the records, correspondence, and work product exchanged between Robinhood and the Department in accordance with the Department’s August 1, 2022 Consent Order (“responsive records”). The records that you seek relate to an ongoing Department investigation. Accordingly, your request is denied pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i) (the “law enforcement exemption”), which excepts from disclosure records that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and that, if disclosed, would interfere with law enforcement investigations. The purpose behind the law enforcement exemption is to protect an agency’s investigative process from being compromised by revealing the scope and nature of an agency's investigation before an investigation is complete. See Matter of Pittari v. Pirro, 258 A.D.2d 202 (2d Dep’t 1999). It also bears noting that the law enforcement exemption applies to both civil and criminal investigatory files. See Madeiros v. Dep’t of Educ., 30 N.Y.3d 67 (2017). In this instance, releasing the requested records would interfere with the Department’s investigative process. Thus, the Department is not disclosing the records that you request pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i). Moreover, in addition to withholding the responsive records pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i), the Department also is withholding the responsive records pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a), which specifically exempts from disclosure records exempted by a state or federal statute. The applicable statutory provision is N.Y. Banking Law (“Banking Law”) § 36(10), which states, in pertinent part, that reports of examinations and investigations and correspondence and memoranda concerning or arising out of such examinations and investigations are confidential and shall not be made public. The statute fosters open communication between the Department and its regulated institutions, a necessity for effective regulation of financial institutions, by ensuring that records transmitted to the Department in connection with its supervision of a financial institution are protected from disclosure. The responsive records that were transmitted between Robinhood and the Department in connection with the Department’s supervision of Robinhood as a licensed money transmitter pursuant to New York Banking Law, constitute correspondence and reports concerning and arising out of an investigation and are, therefore, required to be kept confidential and exempt from disclosure under Banking Law § 36(10). The expectation that records transmitted to the Department will remain confidential is essential to encouraging candor and open communications between the Department, its regulated entities, and the entities undergoing regulatory review that submit such records. Release of such sensitive records, albeit responsive records, may have a chilling effect on the willingness of regulated entities to share information and cooperate with supervisors to resolve issues, and thus confidentiality is critical to the Department’s ability to perform its regulatory mandate and purpose. Accordingly, the exemption set forth in Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) via Banking Law § 36(10) covers the responsive records. In accordance with Public Officers Law § 89(4), you may appeal this determination to withhold the records within 30 days by sending an email to FOIL.Appeals(a)dfs.ny.gov. Very truly yours, Stephanie Mazza Associate Attorney ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <Stephanie.Mazza(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 1:26 PM Subject: Your Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") Request FOIL-2023-095358-021587 To: <G(a)xny.io> Dear Mr. Larson: Attached please find the Department's determination regarding the aforementioned FOIL request. Because your request has been answered, your request is now closed. Tracking Number:FOIL-2023-095358-021587

1 1

Sirius XM Subscription Suit Booted Back To NY State Court
by Gunnar Larson 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

Sirius XM Subscription Suit Booted Back To NY State Court <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1806141?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Pete Brush A Manhattan federal judge on Thursday granted a request by the New York attorney general's office to proceed in state court with claims accusing Sirius XM of deceptive subscriber retention practices, rejecting the company's bid to litigate in federal court. Order attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1806141?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1806141?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

Trump-Tied SPAC Adds NY Fraud Judgment To Risk Factors
by Gunnar Larson 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

Trump-Tied SPAC Adds NY Fraud Judgment To Risk Factors <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1806092?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Elaine Briseño Digital World Acquisition Corp., which is seeking to merge with Donald Trump's social media company, has included a new warning for investors in a regulatory filing following the former president's $453.5 million fraud penalty in New York state court. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1806092?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1806092?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

Trump Flags Thousands Of Calls, Texts In Fani Willis DQ Bid
by Gunnar Larson 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

Trump Flags Thousands Of Calls, Texts In Fani Willis DQ Bid <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1806305?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Lynn LaRowe As a bid to oust Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis over her relationship with a prosecutor in Donald Trump's election interference case garners support, the former president pointed Friday to thousands of text messages and dozens of visits to back up the defense argument that the relationship began before Willis hired the prosecutor. 1 document attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1806305?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1806305?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

1 0

Binance Judge Says Greed Overtook Ethics, OKs $4.3B Plea
by Gunnar Larson 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

Binance Judge Says Greed Overtook Ethics, OKs $4.3B Plea <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1806284?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> By Greg Lamm A Washington federal judge signed off Friday on Binance's $4.3 billion plea deal on money laundering and bank fraud charges, saying from the bench that the cryptocurrency exchange's ethics violations could not be explained away by mere ignorance. Motion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1806284?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1806284?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…>

1 0

Assassinphone threat to US armed forces
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

Many thanks Baff for fixing my post. I've been online since late 2000 but am still learning. My understanding of democratic surveillance is this comes under "Brin ". A recent example being Comeys attempt to relaunch Clipper as multisig. Maybe strong AI can salvage something from this trainwreck. This problem could quickly be superseded by new problems created by the singularity. As for digging in and relitigating WW1. I thought thats why they invented the Grizzly Plough. There does seem to be an opening now for more quantum key exchanging in the arena. Full spectrum dominance favors the prepared mind! And of course there is the APster decapitation tactic. A quantum keyed assassinphone in every foxhole. Sear, " Putin Stiffs com " Tl/Dr Bring back Poindexter. Make assassination great again.

2 1

Assassinphone threat to US armed forces
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 25 Feb '24

25 Feb '24

FORT IRWIN, Calif. — As the general paced the briefing room, he displayed a piece of lethal technology and detailed the death and chaos it has caused in Ukraine. Almost 90 Russian soldiers were slain in a single attack in 2022, explained Army Maj. Gen. Curtis Taylor, when Ukrainian forces dropped U.S.-provided rockets on buildings pulsing with electronic signals. Here in the Mojave Desert, where Taylor oversees simulated war designed to prepare U.S. troops for the real thing, the same behavior abounds, he warned. Taylor held up his cellphone. “This device,” he said, “is going to get our soldiers killed.” The U.S. military is undertaking an expansive revision of its approach to war fighting, having largely abandoned the counterinsurgency playbook that was a hallmark of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan to focus instead on preparing for an even larger conflict with more sophisticated adversaries

2 1

Fwd: The Freedom Of Expression Versus The Right To Privacy - Considerations - Human Rights - Worldwide
by Gunnar Larson 25 Feb '24

25 Feb '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 12:57 PM Subject: The Freedom Of Expression Versus The Right To Privacy - Considerations - Human Rights - Worldwide To: <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> FBI, yesterday in Chelsea the NYPD was at the door and I would not open it... I think this had to do with the Mayor Adams? Looking through the peep hole, there were several officers with the body cameras 📷 going. I filed a new NYPD FOIL for the new footage. What happened yesterday makes this article below one of my favorites. I think this explains yesterday probably better than anything. Gunnar --- https://www.mondaq.com/human-rights/1426622/the-freedom-of-expression-versu… Worldwide: The Freedom Of Expression Versus The Right To Privacy - Considerations 21 February 2024 As an essential attribute of democracy, freedom of expression is legitimised through a range of both national and international instruments. In the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter - the Convention) this concept was reinforced in Article 10. In the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom, we observe the importance given by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to this principle - "freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a [democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man". In the same case, the European Court emphasised that freedom of expression is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society". Freedom of expression is not an absolute right and, as the Court showed in Morice v. France, it is accompanied by exceptions that require a strict interpretation, and the need to restrict it must be convincingly established. Any interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression needs to be conclusively and unequivocally motivated by the court, considering the principle of proportionality. In addition, it is necessary to argue that this interference is a necessary one in a democratic society. Thus, if in the exercise of the right to express one's opinion some unjustified insult is resorted to infringing the right to a good reputation, the court is called to take into account all aspects of the case, including analysing whether the main purpose of the value judgement was rather to raise public awareness of a matter of public interest, even if expressed in an exaggerated or provocative manner, rather than denigrate. We are in the presence of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention when the reasons invoked by the national courts cannot be considered relevant and sufficient to justify the interference with the right to freedom of expression of an applicant and when this interference is disproportionate in relation to the legitimate aim pursued. In the Marunić v. Croatia case, the European Court decided that there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, finding that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression in the form of summary dismissal was not necessary in a democratic society to protect the reputation and rights of the society in question. In this case, the applicant, director of a municipal company providing services of public interest, was summarily dismissed following public statements in which she defended herself, statements made a week after the president of the company criticised her activity in an article of the press. The dismissal decision was motivated by the fact that her statements to the press harm the company's reputation. The applicant complained that her statements to the press were made only to refute the false accusations against her and that her dismissal violated her right to freedom of expression. The Court held that, although the obligation of loyalty, reserve and discretion normally prevents employees from publicly criticising the employers' activity, in the present case the essential element is the appearance in the press of the other member of the company's management and the public criticism of the activity of the applicant. Under these conditions, she could not remain silent and not defend her reputation in the same way. It would be regarded as stretching the duty of loyalty to request otherwise. The internal laws of the member-states may require the proof of the veracity of the statements made publicly, and this does not seem to contravene Article 10. On the contrary, such measures are intended to prevent gratuitous personal attacks, with unnecessarily hurtful comments, that is, without any valid justification. In the case of Axel Springer AG v. Germany, it was shown that the quality of public personality of the person whose reputation protection is weighed against the restriction of freedom of expression plays an important role. This being a sufficiently well-known actor, and the fact that he had been arrested in public and actively sought to come to the fore by revealing information about his private life in a series of interviews, meant that his legitimate belief that his private life will be effectively protected was limited. We observe a similar perspective in the case of Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 2), where the Court noted that the case concerned aspects of public interest and that the former chancellor, insofar as he had occupied one of the highest political positions of the Federal Republic of Germany, had a duty to show a much greater degree of tolerance than a private person. In the constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court it is highlighted that the limits of acceptable criticism are greater towards a politician than towards a private person. Politicians unavoidably and knowingly expose themselves to the scrutiny of their every word and deed by the public and must therefore display a greater degree of tolerance for criticism. In the decision of Mladina D. D. In Ljubljana v. Slovenia, the Court likewise emphasised that the limits of acceptable criticism are greater in relation to a politician, particularly as he himself had made controversial public statements, than in relation to a private person. Both the context in which the editor's article was written (an intense political debate) and the style used (similar to the parliamentarian's provocative behaviour and comments) were not sufficiently taken into account by the national courts. Therefore, the article was not a gratuitous personal attack on the MP, but a reply to the MP's own public remarks. Consequently, it was concluded that the domestic courts had not struck a fair balance between the competing interests of protecting the reputation or rights of the parliamentarian and the publisher's right to freedom of expression. In Reznik v. Russia the applicant complained that his right to freedom of expression had been disproportionately restricted. The European Court ruled that it was indeed violated Article 10 of the Convention, finding that the applicant did not exceed the limits of acceptable criticism, that his statement was based on a sufficient factual basis and that the Moscow Court, which convicted him of libel, did not base its decision on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. In particular, the tribunal did not maintain any balance between the need to protect the petitioners' reputation and the public interest. Furthermore, although the applicant was ordered to pay only a small sum of money as compensation, the initiation of a libel suit against him was likely to have a chilling effect on his freedom of expression. The case of Rodriguez Ravelo v. Spain concerned language used by a lawyer in a written application that contained value judgments about a female judge and attributed reprehensible behaviour to her. The applicant complained about the conviction and the sentence imposed on the grounds that they represented a disproportionate interference with the exercise of his right to express himself freely in the context of his professional duties. The Court decided that Article 10 of the Convention was violated. Certainly, the applicant's conviction and sentence were provided for by law and the interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the judge's reputation and rights and maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. However, the Court found that the applicant's conviction could have a deterrent effect on lawyers called upon to defend their clients. The Spanish criminal courts therefore did not strike a fair balance between the need to maintain the authority of the judiciary and the need to protect freedom of expression. The punishment pronounced against the lawyer was therefore not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and was therefore not necessary in a democratic society. We observe that this sanction in the specific circumstances of the case were excessive. A case also worthy of attention is Morice v. France, in which the conviction of a lawyer, considering the observations presented in the press, for complicity in slander against investigating judges who had been recused from the judicial investigation regarding the death of a judge was targeted. The applicant argued that the conviction for complicity in defamation violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. It was not disputed in this case that the decision to convict the applicant constituted an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as provided by law, to protect his reputation or the rights of others. The Court decided, however, that there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, noting that the conviction for complicity in slander pronounced against the applicant can be seen as a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression and therefore was not necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 10. At the same time, it should be noted that, considering his specific status and his position in the administration of justice, the Court considers that the lawyer cannot be assimilated to a journalist. Indeed, their respective places and missions in judicial debate are inherently different. The journalist must communicate, in compliance with his duties and responsibilities, information and ideas on all matters of general interest, including those relating to the administration of justice. In turn, the lawyer acts as an actor of the justice system, directly involved in its operation and in the defence of a party. Therefore, he cannot be assimilated to an external witness responsible to inform the public. Another important aspect to consider refers to the attestation of the existence of any element suggesting bad faith on the part of the person issuing public statements, as was shown in the judgement of Kanellopoulou v. Greece. At the same time, in this case the European Court established that the Greek courts did not place the applicant's statements in the specific context of the case, nor did they correctly consider the suffering felt by the applicant when she made the statements, in this case being the patient who endured the shortcomings of an operation conducted by a renown cosmetic surgeon. Therefore, we conclude that the consequences suffered by a person due to the actions of another plays a significant role when it comes to expressing their opinion publicly. Often there is an incidence between Article 10 (freedom of expression) with Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. In such situations, the incidence between these values must be balanced and analysed in relation to the concrete circumstances of the case, as well as the legitimate goal pursued by each of the parties, to avoid disproportionate sanctions. When we talk about the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the consequences that may exist are discussed, such as: the stigmatization of an individual, which has a major impact on his honour and reputation and affects his private and family life; inability to continue working; being forced to leave his home or the community he belongs to, leading to his social exclusion; the suffering of extremely serious damages in terms of psychological and moral integrity, but also physical (aggression from other people, self-flagellation, suicide), etc. The gravity of such consequences must not be the subject of speculation, but a causal link between the statement and the effect will be proved in order to convince an impartial and independent court of the truth of such facts. In this sense the Petrenco v. Republic of Moldova case becomes relevant. At the time of the facts, the applicant was the president of the Association of Historians from the Republic of Moldova and a university professor. He complained that his reputation had been damaged because of the publication of claims in the official newspaper of the Moldovan government suggesting that he had collaborated with the KGB in his past. The European Court decided that Article 8 of the Convention was infringed, finding that the reasons invoked by the Moldovan courts to protect the right to freedom of expression of the newspaper and the author of the article in dispute were insufficient for the first against the right to respect the reputation of the applicant. The Court observed, in particular, that the article was published in the context of an animated debate of great public interest and that the applicant, who was a public figure, was obliged to tolerate greater public scrutiny and criticism than if he had been a private person. Therefore, the general tone of the article and the offensive language did not in themselves constitute a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his reputation. However, by suggesting that the applicant collaborated with the KGB as if it were an established fact, to the extent that it was mere speculation on the part of the author, the article overstepped the bounds of acceptable commentary in the context of a public interest debate. The courts are called upon to strike a fair balance between the relevant interests when two rights of equal importance, such as freedom of expression and respect for privacy, are brought before them, explaining at length and reasonably the reasons why one value takes precedence over the other in each individual case and subjecting the interference on any right to the test of proportionality. We believe that the right to verbalise observations or criticisms on a subject of general interest, even if in a harsh or even acidic manner, should not be restricted in a democratic society in the absence of relevant and absolutely justified reasons, especially if it is about value judgments, made in general terms and having a sufficient factual basis.

1 2