Polish IP & IT law » criminal law

Archive for: criminal law

Telecommunications law, case I OSK 1079/10

August 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1598/09“. The Supreme Administrative Court in its order of 15 July 2010 case file I OSK 1079/10 decided to stay the execution of the decision issued by the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) and ruled that the Polish Act of 16 July 2000, Telecommunications Law – TLA – (in Polish: Prawo telekomunikacyjne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 171, item 1800 with later amendments, provides broader protection of personal data because of telecommunications confidentiality, than the provisions of the Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.

The Court held that the disclosure of IP addresses which enable identification of specific individuals, that was ordered during administrative proceedings initiated with regard to disclosure of such data, while such proceedings did not ended with judgment in force, may violate the provisions of Article 160 of the TLA.

Article 160.
1. An entity participating in the performance of telecommunications activities within public networks and entities cooperating with it shall keep the telecommunications confidentiality.
2. Entities referred to in paragraph 1 shall maintain due diligence, within the scope justified by technical or economic reasons, while securing telecommunications equipment, telecommunications networks and data collections from disclosing the telecommunications confidentiality.
3. A person coming into possession of a message not meant to be read by him/her when using radio or terminal equipment shall keep the telecommunications confidentiality. The provisions of Article 159 (3) and (4) shall respectively apply.
4. The recording of a message acquired in a manner described in paragraph 3 by a body executing control of telecommunications activities in order to document a violation of a provision of the Act, shall not be a violation of the telecommunications confidentiality.

While assessing the validity of the request to stay the execution of GIODO’s decision to disclose the requested IP address at this stage of proceedings, the Court agreed with the author of the cassation complaint, that the execution of the questioned decision at this stage makes it impossible to reverse the actions taken after the disclosure of the IP addresses, and such action should be seen as causing the effects that are difficult to reverse according to Article 61(3) of the Act on the Law on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270, with later amendments.

§ 1 Filing a complaint does not stay the execution of the act or actions.

(…)

§ 3 After the delivery of a complaint to the court, the court may issue at the request of the applicant, the order to stay the execution, in whole or in part of the act or actions referred to in § 1, if there is a risk of causing significant damage or cause to be difficult to reverse, with the exception of the provisions of local law which entered into force, unless the special Act excludes the stay of their execution. The refusal to stay the execution of the act or actions by the authority, does not deprive the applicant of action to the court. This also applies to acts issued or adopted in all proceedings conducted within the same case.

The SAC held that if the Supreme Administrative Court would agree with the cassation complaint filed against the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court of 3 February 2010 case file II SA/Wa 1598/09, the effects of the execution of the questioned decision could not be reversed, because the IP address identifying a specific person is available to another participant in the proceedings. Accordingly, the court held that the correct solution at this stage of proceedings, is to stay the execution of the questioned decision also with a view to the impact of which its execution might result in, as well as the nature of the protection of personal data resulting from the relevant regulations such as, inter alia, the TLA.

Computer crimes, case I KZP 7/10

July 9th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its order of 29 June 2010 case file I KZP 7/10 held that, the prescription of defamation crime is counted from the date of publication of the offensive content. This crime is defined in article 212 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Article 212. § 1. Whoever imputes to another person, a group of persons, an institution or organisational unit not having the status of a legal person, such conduct, or characteristics that may discredit them in the face of public opinion or result in a loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type to activity
shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.
§ 2. If the perpetrator commits the act specified in § 1 through the mass media
shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.
§ 3. When sentencing for an offence specified in §1 or 2, the court may adjudge a supplementary payment in favour of the injured person or of the Polish Red Cross, or of another social purpose designated by the injured person a supplementary payment (nawiązka).
§ 4. The prosecution of the offence specified in § 1 or 2 shall occur upon a private charge.

This issue was referred to the Supreme Court by the District Court, who had inquired whether the defamation is a crime of continuous nature, which means that in case of defamatory entry placed on the Internet, it is committed as long as entry is available on the website. Interestingly, the SC refused to answer this question but the Court deliberated very wide on this issue in the justification of the order. The Supreme Court ruled that on-line defamation is not a continuous crime, which would involve creating and maintaining the status recognized by law as unlawful. The Court was aware of the fact the interests of the victim are violated as long as the defamatory content is publicly available on a website. However, per analogy to the printed press, where the victim’s interests are harmed as long as there are archived copies of newspapers containing offensive words.

The Supreme Court held that the offense involving the placement of a defamatory content in the Internet as referred to in article 212 § 2 of the CC is committed at the moment to making an entry and not while removing it. This means that the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted with the private charge after a year from the time when the victim learned about the offender, but no later than the expiry of three years from the time it was committed.

Internet websites, case I C 1532/09

March 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Observatory of Media Freedom in Poland run by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reported on a case of Augustyn Ormanty, the mayor of Kalwaria Zebrzydowska town, who sued Tomasz Baluś, the administrator of naszakalwaria.pl website, for personal rights infringement after he found that the website hosted defamatory comments directed to his person. Mr. Ormanty decided to request the court to order the removal of 18 comments because he received negative response from Tomasz Baluś who claimed that these questioned statements put in the form of comments to information published at his website, are the individual opinions of people who wrote it, for the content of which, Tomasz Baluś is not responsible, because they are owned by their authors.

The District Court I Civil division in Kraków in a judgment of 11 MArch 2010, case file I C 1532/09, ruled that naszakalwaria.pl website cannot be deemed as the press according to provisions of the Polish Act of 26 January 1984 on Press law – APL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo prasowe), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 5, item 24, with later amendmets, because it did not meet the criterion of periodicity.

The court noted that naszakalwaria.pl website is rather a collection of publications and serves as a wall on which people are able to post their comments. The court emphasized that the purpose of Internet portals, such as naszakalwaria.pl is primarily to initiate and shape public debate on issues important to the local community. The court added that the Internet is, in principle, free from control and could be subject to control only, if it fits the regulation provided in the APL.

The court also stated that Augustyn Ormanty failed to prove that the offensive – in his opinion – comments related to the facts. According to the Court, they were rather opinions, which in principle cannot be judged based on the criterion of truth and falsehood.

In addition, the court held that Tomasz Baluś had a limited capacity for meticulousy checking and editing of the entries appearing on the forum of his website because of their large numbers. The court stated that the measures taken by the Mr. Baluś to search and control the entries for vulgarity and to remove obviously insulting comments were sufficient.

According to the Court, Mr. Ormanty had a possibility and the right to request the removal of comments he found insulting, based on provisions of article 14 the Polish Act of 18 July 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means – PSEM – (in Polish: ustwa o świadczeniu usłóg droga elektroniczną), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 144, item. 1204, as amended.

1. A person who gives access to the contents of a network IT system to a customer, where the customer stores data, is not aware of the illegal features of the data or activity connected with the data and upon receiving an official notification or credible information about the illegal features of the data or activity connected with it, immediately bars access to the data, shall not be responsible for the data.
2. A Service provider who has received the official notification of an illegal character of the stored data that was supplied by the customer, and prevented the access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for damages resulting from preventing access to such data.
3. A service provider who has received credible information of the illegal character of the stored data supplied by the customer and prevented access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for the damage resulting from preventing access to such data, if it has immediately notified the customer of the intention to prevent access to data.

The court pointed out to the argument stating that the mayor is a public figure who must reckon with the fact that its activities may be subject to criticism. As a public figure, Mr. Ormanty should show greater resistance to critical opinions, negatively evaluating the performance of the functions entrusted to him.

In conclusion, the Court added that the law has not kept pace with the development of modern technology and therefore, it does not precisely regulate the issues of freedom of expression in the Internet. Therefore, the careful evaluation of such situations, is entrusted to the judges. Their task is to ensure and guarantee the freedom of expression in similar cases.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1085/04

February 11th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In July 2003, the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) received a complaint in which a natural person, known as W.K. (personal data of the parties are removed from Polish courts’ judgments), requested the GIODO to issue an order to the Polish Internet company to reveal personal data of persons, against which the applicant wanted to initiate legal proceedings. The complaint showed that the online forum operated by the Internet company hosted defamatory content posted by persons using only nicknames.

W.K. proved that he had requested the Company to disclose full IP addresses of computers from which persons using only nicknames have sent messages to the online forum. The applicant also pointed out that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to determine the perpetrators of the alleged defamation. The refusal was also upheld by the District Prosecutor’s Office.

W.K. pointed out that he brought a private accusation based on article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments, to the Regional Court in K., against the persons who used given nicknames. The Court has issued an order in which it considered the private accusation legally ineffective because it included error in the form – i.e., no indication of names of defendants and their addresses, and W.K. did not clear these errors.

The GIODO has found that the purpose for which W.K. has applied for, i.e. the access to personal data, to assert his rights before the court, is legally justified. The use of these data by the applicant in the proceedings could not be considered as a violation of the rights and freedoms of persons whos personal data was collected because after the initiation of criminal or civil proceedings, personal data would be in a disposition the court.

The Company filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The Court in a judgment of 9 February 2005, case file II SA/Wa 1085/04, annulled the contested decision. The VAC held that the complaint was based on article 23(1) pt. 5 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.

1. The processing of data is permitted only if:
5) processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests pursued by the controllers or data recipients, provided that the processing does not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subject.

The court did not accept that the wording of this provision can be interpreted as a rule requiring a data controller to reveal personal data at the request of the person whose requested data does not concern. The basis for such claims available for third parties for purposes other than inclusion in the data collection, was provided in the article 29(1) and (2) of the PPD. This provision being in force until 1 May 2004, did not give rise to demand release of the data, if the controller/administrator of the data were private sector.

The Court also held that the imposition of the duty of the data controller can only be done when the information being available to the controller falls into the category of personal data as defined in article 6(1) of the PPD.

personal data shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.

The requested information related to IP addresses of computers from which the messages were posted by certain people using certain nicknames. The Company argued that it does not require users of its forum to identify themselves in order to post information, what causes that, the IT administration system of the portal website hosting different forums, registers only IP address of computers of persons using the system, and it does not produce other data for identifying the user of a forum. Only a request to the operator of the telecommunication network could lead to the identification of the computer which was connected to the server hosting the portal and its forums. The Court cited English and Polish comentators and found that information, that without extraordinary and disproportionate effort can be “linked” with a specific person, especially by using readily and widely available sources, also deserve credit for their category of personal data. The identifiable person is defined in article 6(2) of the Polish Act of August 29, 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of October 29, 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of July 6, 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.

2. An identifiable person is the one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his/her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.
3. A piece of information shall not be regarded as identifying where the identification requires an unreasonable amount of time, cost and manpower.

See also my posts entitled “Polish regulations on personal data protection” and “Polish case law on personal data protection“.

Computer crime, case V K 1595/08

February 9th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Arnold Buzdygan brought a private accusation before the Regional Court for Wrocław Śródmieście V Criminal Division against Olgierd Rudak. The indictment was based on articles 212 § 2 and 216 § 2 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Article 212. § 1. Whoever imputes to another person, a group of persons, an institution or organisational unit not having the status of a legal person, such conduct, or characteristics that may discredit them in the face of public opinion or result in a loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type to activity
shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.
§ 2. If the perpetrator commits the act specified in § 1 through the mass media
shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

Article 216
§ 1. Whoever insults another person in his presence, or though in his absence but in public, or with the intention that the insult shall reach such a person,
shall be subject to a fine or the penalty of restriction of liberty .
§ 2. Whoever insults another person using the mass media, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

The court in Wroclaw was obliged ex officio under article 35 § 1 of the Criminal Proceedings Code – CRPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Karnego) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 89, item 555, with later amendments, to examine its jurisdiction and if found otherwise, to refer the case to the court with the proper one. The Court in Wrocław held that pursuant to article 31 § 1 of the CRPC, the jurisdiction is where the offense was committed (the teritorial jurisdiction).

Buzdygan claimed that the offense was commited in the article entitled “Trolls scour in the Net” which was published in the Polish magazine Przekrój of 11 November 2007, in addition the allegedly defamatory content was broadcasted by TV stations such as TVN, Polsat and TVP, in their news and in the Internet. Judge Jolanta Pol-Kulig had to decide on the location of the Internet.

[b]oth the editorial office of Przekrój and the abovementioned TV stations and the Internet are located in Warsaw, one should consider that the commitment of a crime to the detriment of the private prosecutor was performed in that place.

The court in an order of 31 December 2008, case file V K 1595/08, referred the case to the Regional Court for Warszawa Śródmieście II Criminal Division. Interestingly, the court in Wrocław did not consider that the alleged offense was not committed.

See also “Personal rights, case I ACa 949/09“.

Personal rights, case I ACa 949/09

February 9th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Since a couple of years he is a very controversial figure of the Polish Internet and he also has become the cause of two interesting judgments which I am going to report. Arnold Buzdygan appeared on different Polish newsgroups, where he wrotre, inter alia, on topics such as copyright, sexology, psychology and politics. His style of writing was, at least, very controversial. Due to the vulgarity of some of his statements (he claimed that such actions were performed by his followers who allegedly used his name), offers to make a bet and announcements of lawsuits and threats of beatings, a part of the Usenet community defined these behaviors as trolling and such informations was posted in the Polish Wikipedia’s entry devoted to Buzdygan’s persona. Arnold Buzdygan decided to sue.

In the petition for libel filed against the Association Wikimedia Poland and Agnieszka K., he demanded an order to remove the existing contents of the article Arnold Buzdygan in both English and Polish-language versions of Wikipedia, and to put the apology instead of these entries, and to block the possibility of future edition of the questioned article, He also requested the Court to order the Association Wikimedia Poland to pay him the compensation of moral injury and the costs of the process in the sum of 100000 PLN.

In the response to a petition, the Association of Wikimedia Poland requested the Court to dismiss the claim, pointing that such charges cannot be brought against it because of the lack of the so-called “passive legitimacy”. Wikimedia Poland stated that neither the Association itself, or persons acting on its behalf are not engaged in editing of the article on Arnold Buzdygan, Wikimedia Poland argued that it is not a database administrator of Wikipedia or administrator of the servers on which the information is stored, so it would not be possible to remove or permanent blocking of such entries.

The District Court in Wrocław dismissed the suit in judgment of 8 June 2009, case file I C 802/07. Buzdygan appealed, and his petition was rejected by the Appellate Court in Wrocław in a judgment of 17 November 2009, case file I ACa 949/09, published in Orzecznictwo Apelacji Wrocławskiej, Biuletyn Sądu Apelacyjnego we Wrocławiu, No 1 (13), p. 5, Year MMX. The court ruled that the statements published in the disputed article and the mention of trolling do not infringe on Buzdygan’s personal rights. Descriptions of Buzdygan’s activity on different forums, though they may have a pejorative connotation, were the evaluation of the expression of views issued by Arnold Buzdygan, not the description of himself. The wording that was challenged by Buzdygan does not refer to his person, but it concerned the way of formulation of his speech in a public discussion, and the measure of negative evaluation did not exceed the permissible limit.

An active participant of online forums, being a well-known and recognizable in such community is, in this sense, a “public personality”. As a public person, participating in discussions, one agrees and must reckon with the fact that his or her opinions and statements will be subjected to criticism by other users, sometimes very radically and one has to demonstrate greater tolerance and even resistance to unfavourable and unflattering opinions, and even violent attacks. The boundaries of acceptable criticism are wider in fact, than in the case of persons not participating in such discussions. The evidence proceedings during the hearings has shown that Buzdygan was and is very active participant in online forums, and he is a known figure. By applying the test of the higher degree of tolerance for unflattering opinions, the Court found that the wording of the Wikipedia entry devoted to Arnold Buzdygan did not exceed the agreed and acceptable standard.

See also “Computer crime, case V K 1595/08“.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1598/09

February 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

According to lawyers representing the singer Maryla Rodowicz, on the forum of one of the Polish portal websites appeared entries with the content which allegedly violated her personal rights (interests). The lawyers requested the owner to reveal IP addresses of users who posted these entries. The administrator of the portal website deleted the disputed entries but did not reveal any of the IP addresses. Lawyers filed a request to the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO), who ordered the portal to disclose IPs on the grounds that these numbers are personal data. The owner of the portal again refused. The case went to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, which in a judgment of 3 February 2010, case file II SA/Wa 1598/09 upheld the decision of the GIODO. The company who owns the portal may file a cassation to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The VAC judgment provides the interpretation that IP address is a personal data, in accordance with the statutory definition included in article 6 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of October 29, 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of July 6, 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.

Article 6
1. Within the meaning of the Act personal data shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.
2. An identifiable person is the one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his/her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.
3. A piece of information shall not be regarded as identifying where the identification requires an unreasonable amount of time, cost and manpower.

The VAC also noted that the IP address is personal data if it is permanently assigned to the specified device and that is used or operated by a specified entity. This dependence makes certain in given situations that there is the possibility of identifying such entity. The Court said that it is true that the same IP address is not sufficient to identify a person who use it, but together with other information a person can be identified.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. There was another court’s decision with regard to the aforementioned case and the disclosure of IP addresses. See “Telecommunications law, case I OSK 1079/10“.

The U.S. courts and judges have quite different views on this issue. Read for example Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 2009 WL 1794400 (W.D. Wash. June 23, 2009).

Data retention in Poland

January 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 28 December 2009 on a detailed specification of data and types of operators of public telecommunications networks or providers of publicly available telecommunications services obliged for its retention and storage, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2009, No 226 item 1828, came into force on 1 January 2010. The operators will be obliged to perform so-called data retention for 2 years. They will have to collect data that allows to determine dialed numbers as well as a telephone used. The date and time of the connection, the type and location of the caller will also be loged. The same rules apply to Internet connections. The Regulation implements provisions of the Directive 2006/24/EC, on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC. However, in the article entitled “Służby sprawdzą, skąd i kiedy dzwonimy“, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reports Maciej Rogalski’s, the vice-president of the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications, statement.

The suppliers of equipment related to the mass memory, use of the possibility of lobbying also within the EU, and have suggested solutions, which have appealed to special services. However, the usefulness of the new regulation is questionable, since the subsequent use of the information collected is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Computer crime, case II K 320/07

December 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Do you remember Cohen v. Google, Inc., 2009 WL 2883410 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 17, 2009)? If not, just see this short description available at citmedialaw.org website. And it looks like we will have a similar case in Poland. The Polish court wants Google to reveal its users data.

In the articled entitled “Google ma ujawnić e-maile“, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reports recent case of Jakub Świderski. Mr Świderski is a former councillor of Sopot town and a party of a criminal suit brought against him based on a private accusation/charge by Jacek Karnowski, the President of Sopot, (who has been served with seven corruption charges) and his former deputy Cezary Jakubowski. Karnowski and Jakubowski argue that they were insulted and offended by statements allegedly published by Świderski in the onepage magazine “Obserwator sopocki” (in English: “Sopot’s Observer”) that was distributed during local elections in 2006. They also claim that their “public confidence” was jeopardized by Świderski’ actions.

“Obserwator sopocki” was published only three times in 2006. Authors of published texts suggested illicit trade premises and municipal corruption. Karnowski said he had been particularly offended by a photograph depicting his caricature with the envelope in his hand suggesting that he is taking bribes.

Mr Karnowski argues that Świderski was the publisher of “Obserwator sopocki”. The problem is that it has to be proven. The newspaper was distributed on the streets, it was not registered as the press, and the authors wrote under pseudonyms/nicknames: takata1, rzeźniksopocki, wasp. Świderski did not admit that these were his nicknames. So far, the only evidence Karnowski had, was a statement issued by Świderski in which he said “To ja jestem głównym “Obserwatorem”" (in English: “I am the leading “Observer”").

The secret trial before the Regional Court Gdańsk-Południe, case file II K 320/07, was started three years ago. Świderski was charged based on privisions of article 212 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Article 212. § 1. Whoever imputes to another person, a group of persons, an institution or organisational unit not having the status of a legal person, such conduct, or characteristics that may discredit them in the face of public opinion or result in a loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type to activity
shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

§ 2. If the perpetrator commits the act specified in § 1 through the mass media shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

§ 3. When sentencing for an offence specified in §1 or 2, the court may adjudge a supplementary payment in favour of the injured person or of the Polish Red Cross, or of another social purpose designated by the injured person a supplementary payment (nawiązka).

§ 4. The prosecution of the offence specified in § 1 or 2 shall occur upon a private charge.

A few months ago Jakubowski and Karnowski requested the Court to issue an order for the disclosure of e-mail correspondence of Świderski. As Rzeczpospolita reports they asked the Court to exempt Google and Microsoft from the secrecy of correspondence, and to investigate by the Police of all IP addresses of persons, who corresponded with Świderski from July to November 2006. These are addresses registered at gmail.com and hotmail.pl.

Rzeczpospolita reports that Judge Ludwika Małkowska took into account the request of Karnowski to admit the evidence of “official secret information” and exempted Google Kraków (foreign controlled company whos parent company is Google). Judge Małkowska ordered Google Kraków to provide information on persons who registered e-mail addresses related to aforementioned nicknames, identities of all persons who have access to these accounts, from which IP addresses the correspondence was retrieved and what messages were sent to which of the e-mail addresses, together with their content. Judge Małkowska stated that in this case it is necessary to determine the person or persons responsible for the defamatory publications.

Was is the Polish-Russian cyberwar?

October 11th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

According to Rzeczpospolita’s article entitled “Cyberattacks on Poland“, the Polish Internal Security Agency thanks to its cyberpatrols prevented tha largest cyberattack on Polish governmental website. The ISA thinks that these organized DDoS attempts were directed from the Russian Federation.

If you are interested in such issues see also my earlier post entitled “Cyberwar or Why States Need an International Law for Information Operations“.

Categories: computer crime | computer law | criminal law | legal regulations on computers networks.

Press law, case VI Ka 202/09

August 3rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Press law, case II K 367/08“. The District Court in Słupsk in its judgment of 18 June 2009 case file VI Ka 202/09 held that gby.pl – a portal website operated by Leszek Szymczak constituted press under the Press law, however, comments posted on this website by the Internauts do not constitute a press material for the content of which the website administrator could be held responsible. The District Court held that the posts are not letters to the editor or are not – as the Prosecutor argued – “quasi-letters” to the editor. The court said that the posting process on an internet forum is made automatically, there is no prior moderation of such messages.

The administrator of a portal website, which allows for posting comments, is the hosting service provider and is subject to regulations included in article 14 of the Polish Act of 18 July 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means – PSEM – (in Polish: ustwa o świadczeniu usłóg droga elektroniczną), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 144, item. 1204, as amended.

1. A person who gives access to the contents of a network IT system to a customer, where the customer stores data, is not aware of the illegal features of the data or activity connected with the data and upon receiving an official notification or credible information about the illegal features of the data or activity connected with it, immediately bars access to the data, shall not be responsible for the data.
2. A Service provider who has received the official notification of an illegal character of the stored data that was supplied by the customer, and prevented the access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for damages resulting from preventing access to such data.
3. A service provider who has received credible information of the illegal character of the stored data supplied by the customer and prevented access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for the damage resulting from preventing access to such data, if it has immediately notified the customer of the intention to prevent access to data.

The Court ruled that the service provider cannot be held liable for material posted by its users. The court noted that the decision does not mean that no one should be held liable for the posts that contain an offensive material that is a subject to criminal prosecution. The responsibility for this activity should be borne by a direct perpetrator and the prosecution authorities should identify such persons by using the available technical resources (IP addresses). The Prosecution cannot go after the smallest line of resistance and charge the administrators, instead of the actual perpetrators.

Personal rights, case II CSK 539/07

March 27th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

QXL Poland sp. z o.o. is the owner of the allegro.pl auction website which removed the user account of a person (Cezary O.) using the nicknames CezCez, 2cez, 2xcez and espia. The company presented different reasons for its decision to remove the account and tried to justify such action by putting various statements about CezCez on its forum website “Cafe Nowe Allegro”. CezCez did not agree with QXL’s statements and sued. The court of first instance agreed with Cezary O.’s arguments and ruled that QXL Poland make a statement of apology as follows

Allegro.pl wishes to apologize to CezCez for using comments by one of its employees which publicly appeared on the New Cafe Allegro on 17 January 2003,– wording that implied CezCez was dishonest, he lies, he is selfish and that he pursues his own self-interest. These actions and comments affected the good name of CezCez, which was not the intention of QXP Poland.

The above statement was to be published on the Allegro.pl website but both parties appealed. The Appellate Court in Lodz did not share the conclusions of the court of first instance that the username (a nickname) used in internet services is personal right/interests (i.e. intangible personal property) eligible for protection under articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with later amendments.

Article 23
The personal interests of a human being, in particular to health, dignity, freedom, freedom of conscience, surname or pseudonym, image, secrecy of correspondence, inviolability of home, and scientific, artistic, inventor’s and rationalizing achievements, shall be protected by civil law independent of protection envisaged in other provisions.

Article 24
§ 1 The person whose personal rights are threatened by someone else’s action, may require the desist of that action, unless it is not illegal. In the event of the infringement one may also require, the person who committed the violation, to fulfill the actions necessary to remove its effects, in particular, to make a statement of the relevant content and appropriate format. According to the conditions laid down in the Code one may also require monetary compensation or payment of an appropriate amount of money for a social purpose indicated.
§ 2 If as the result of a breach of personal rights one has suffered pecuniary prejudice, the aggrieved person may claim compensation based on general principles.
§ 3 The above shall not prejudice the entitlements provided by other regulations, in particular in copyright law and the patent (invention) law.

The Appellate Court did not agree with the arguments that the user name (a nickname) has parallels with a pseudonym. The case went to the highest court in a further appeal as a cassation complaint. The Supreme Court of Republic of Poland in a judgment of 11 MArch 2008, case file II CSK 539/07, dismissed the case for procedural reasons. However, the SC did not agree with conclusion of the Appellate Court with regard to protection of nicknames or usernames in the digital environment.

The court noted that a username fulfils a variety of functions. First, the creation of a username is a prerequisite to registering on the allegro.pl website in order to obtain its own account and so participate in auctions. A person using such a nickname may be a buyer or a seller. Secondly, a username allows a person to log into Allegro.pl website. In the process of logging in, the user is given a pair of identifiers, such as a username and password. Thirdly, the username/nickname identifies the individual in question in the online environment, in this particular case, in the environment of people using Allegro.pl services.

The individual is therefore recognised as a user using a specific nickname. The Supreme Court could not agree with the position of Court of Appeal that the nickname is purely a technical issue used to personalise the operation. On the contrary it argued, the username/nickname defines and characterises the person who uses such an auction site, bids on it, is the party to a contract of sale, issues comments or is involved in correspondence with other users.

The court found that

In some cases, participations in the auction website by a user using a specific name can be a source of information for other participants who know that this user typically takes part in an auction of that type, bids only to a certain amount of money, only on certain days, in a certain way, does not compete with users using specific names, that the user is honest, efficient and immediately carries out transactions, etc.”
The Supreme Court also ruled that a username identifies a specific natural person. A username consists of a series of signs and letters, and there are no counter-indications that a person who created his or her own username could use his or her own name, surname, artistic pseudonym, pen name, or alias or it could even be a natural person who is the agent and uses the company name (the firm) under which it operates its business.

It appeared to the court that in the assumption of a username by a person rather than his or her own name, the pseudonym (which has so far been used as an example in artistic activities) is meant as the assumption of a nickname in order to allow for individualisation of that particular person. The word “nickname” comes from the Greek language (“pseudonymos”–bearing a false name, falsely named) and it means a first name, last name or another name which someone uses to conceal his real name or surname.

The court found irrelevant the motivation of a person who takes a nickname which is used as a pseudonym only in the “internet environment” or that the nickname may only be associated with the activities of that particular person carried out within the scope of services offered by Allegro.pl, since it may also have a broader meaning and go beyond the services of Allegro.pl. Consequently, the court noted that a username is subject to legal protection on the same basis on which protection is granted for any name, pseudonym or firm name, under which a person has established its business (whether it is a company name or that of a private person). At the same time, the court found no reason to treat a username/nickname as a separate personal right.

Press law, case II K 367/08

January 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 16 December 2008, the Regional Court in Słupsk issued a judgment, case file II K 367/08, in which Leszek Szymczak was acquitted from charges of “publishing press material featuring criminal content that publicly incited its readers to commit offences”. As you may read from our article, this case concerned posts that were published at the online forum of http://gazetabytowska.pl website (also accessible at http://gby.pl), which – according to the Public Prosecutor’s Office – included incitement to commit crime. Charges were based on article 49a of the Polish Act of 26 January 1984 on Press law – APL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo prasowe), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 24, with later amendmets.

An editor who unintentionally published press material that featured criminal content mentioned in article 37a hereof, shall be subject to a fine penalty or the restriction of liberty.

In connection with article 255 of the Criminal Code of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 88, item 553, with later amendments.

1. A person who publicly calls for committing an offence of a fiscal crime shall be subject to a fine penalty, the restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to two years.
2. A person who publicly calls for committing a crime shall be subject to the restriction of liberty for up to three years.
3. A person who publicly praises the commitment of a crime shall be subject to a fine penalty amounting to up to 180 daily rates, the restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to one year.

The court ruled that according to the Polish Press Law, Leszek Szymczak is the publisher and the editor, however the entries that were posted by visitors of his website did not constitute a press material. The appeal brought by the Prosecutor Office was rejected. See “Press law, case VI Ka 202/09“.

“Pirate” politician

December 23rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

According to a recent article which is available at wp.pl website, in Polish language, the court trial of Tomasz Sz., former member of the Civic Platform and deputy mayor (or vicepresident if you prefer) of Kraków city will start in mid-January next year. Tomasz Sz. along with other former Kraków city’s managers is facing charges for mismanagement and corruption. The prosecutor also alleges that Tomasz Sz. in order to achieve financial gain, downloaded from the Internet illegally copied software for GPS devices without the consent of its producer and programs that were created for removing security measures implemented to prohibit the operation of software in full. The price of the aforementioned software (with maps included) was estimated at 850 PLN. The said software was found on the Parliamentary’s laptop assigned to the politician.

Now, what about Polish criminal law regulations on computer (and not only as you can see from the above example) software copyright infringement? There are proper provisions included in the Criminal Code (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Chapter XXXV
Offences against Property
Article 278. § 1. Whoever, with the purpose of appropriating, wilfully takes someone else’s movable property shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.

§ 2. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who without the permission of the authorised person, acquires someone else’s computer software, with the purpose of gaining material benefit.

§ 3. In the event that the act is of a lesser significance, the perpetrator shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

§ 4. If the theft has been committed to the detriment of a next of kin, the prosecution shall occur upon a motion from the injured person.

§ 5. The provisions of § 1, 3 and 4 shall be applied accordingly to stealing energy or a card enabling the collection of money from a bank automatic cash dispenser [automatic teller machine].

There is also the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 90, item 631, with later amendments.

Chapter 14
Criminal Liability
Art. 115. 1. Any person who usurps the authorship or misleads as to the authorship of all or part of the work or performance of another shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to 3 years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. Any person who, without mentioning the creator’s name or pseudonym, discloses the work of another either in its original or in a derived form, or a performance, or who publicly distorts a work, a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, shall be liable to the same penalty.

3. Any person who, with a view to making a material profit in a manner other than that specified in paragraph 1 or 2, infringes the rights of the author or neighboring rights within the meaning of Articles 16, 17, 18, 19 paragraph 1, art. 19¹, 86, 94 paragraph 4 or article 97 or without performing his duties as mentioned in article 19³ paragraph 2, 20 paragraphs 1-4, 40 paragraph 1 or paragraph 2,
shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 116. 1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, discloses another’s work in its original or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. If the perpetrator of the infringement commits the acts specified in paragraph 1 with a view to deriving a material profit therefrom, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

3. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of six months to five years.

4. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 acts unintentionally, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 117. 1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, fixes or reproduces another’s work in its original version or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, at the same time authorizing the disclosure thereof, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

Art. 118. 1. Any person who, with a view to making a material profit thereby, acquires the object constituting the material embodiment of a work, a performance, a program or a disclosed videogram, or reproduces it without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, assists in the sale of the said object, conceals it or assists in its concealment, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

3. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 or 2 on the basis of surrounding circumstances should and can assume that the item was obtained through criminal act,
he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 118¹. 1. Any person who manufactures the devices or their components intended for the unauthorized removal or circumvention of effective technical measures against playing, copying or reproduction of works or objects of related rights or any person who is making a turnover of such devices or their components, or advertise them for sale or lease,
he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. Any person who owns, maintains or uses the device or their components, referred to in paragraph. 1,
he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 119. Any person who obstructs or hinders the exercise of the right to monitor the use of a work or artistic performance, or who refuses to give the information provided for in Article 47, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 120. (repealed)

Art. 121. 1. In the case of condemnation for an act referred to in Article 115, 116, 117 or 118 or article 118¹, the court shall decide to confiscate the objects resulting from the infringement, even if they do not belong to the perpetrator thereof.

2. In the case of condemnation for an act referred to in Article 115, 116, 117 or 118, the court may decide to confiscate the objects that served for the commission of the infringement, even if they do not belong to the perpetrator thereof.

Art. 122. The acts referred to in Articles 116, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, 117, paragraph 1, 118, paragraph 1, 118¹ and 119 shall be proceeded against on a complaint from the injured party.

Art. 122¹ In cases of crimes referred to in Articles 115-119 a competent organization for collective management of copyright and related rights is also deemed as sufferer.

Art. 123. The Minister of Justice may specify by ordinance the regional courts within the jurisdiction of a particular voivoide court that are competent to hear cases relating to the infringements referred to in Articles 115-119.

Very good questions

December 19th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? asked Juvenal in Satires, VI, 347. My friend Piotr Waglowski asks very important and more specific questions (in Polish language) regarding the operation of Warsaw’s CCTV systems. It all started when he received internal documents about bonuses that every employee receives when he observes and spot a crime. There are no bonuses for counteracting of such crimes. The director of Zakład Obsługi Systemu Monitoringu set rates for bonuses based on crimes that each employee spots. There is 15 points for crimes such as robbery, rape, fight and 3 points for an offence of “hooligans’ nature” such as damaging the property, 2 points for driving intoxicated, theft or appropriation of property of value below 250 PLN (it is an offence not a crime under the Polish law) and also 2 points for wanted persons and juvenile who are present on streets after 10 pm. There is also 1 point for “persons lying down” – which probably means drunk or homeless person.

Categories: criminal law | personal data | personal rights.