SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION contacts. The joint petitions were brought by the lawyer Shachar Ben Meir and rights organizations to challenge the Israeli Government’s decision (“the Enabling Decision”) to authorize the ISA to aid in coronavirus ���contact tracing”. The Court found that section 7(b)(6) of the Israel Security Agency Law, 5762-2002 (“ISA Law”), which extends ISA jurisdiction to “essential national security interests of the State”, was too ambiguous to authorize such a significant expansion of the ISA’s activity over time without primary legislation. The Court further held that the Enabling Decision was a “serious violation of the right to privacy” [para. 36] and that, due to the fundamental importance of the freedom of the press, any contact tracing of journalists who tested positive for the coronavirus by the ISA would require their consent. While the Court appreciated the urgency of the public health crisis, it held that the “substantive flaws in the current mechanism” had to be replaced with a “transparent, voluntary mechanism.” The Court, therefore, recommended that Knesset Members implement primary legislation to continue the involvement of the ISA that is both provisional and a temporary order. More info here. India: In the case of Balu Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors (2020), the High Court of Kerala issued an interim order directing the implementation of safeguarding measures to protect the confidentiality of data collected on patients or persons susceptible to COVID-19. A set of five petitions were filed in relation to a contract entered into by the Government of Kerala with Sprinklr Inc., a USA based software company, for creating an online data platform for data analysis of medical/ health data in relation to COVID-19. The petitions claimed that the contract lacked any safeguard against the unauthorized exploitation of health data collected by Sprinklr, on behalf of the State of Kerala. The Court stressed the urgency under the current circumstances to protect the confidentiality of personal data in order to avoid a “data epidemic.” In light of those concerns, the Court directed the State to anonymize all the sensitive personal data thus far collected with respect to COVID-19 before transferring it to Sprinklr, or any third-party service provider. Further, any future collection of data must be based on principles of informed consent where every individual will be informed about the access of such data by third parties. The Court also prohibited Sprinklr from committing any act in breach of confidentiality of the data and directed Sprinklr to entrust all the residual COVID-19 related data back to the State government. In this decision the Court does not analyze the right to freedom of expression when considering the reasons for its ruling. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection of privacy in this particular case provides protection to the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. xi. Surveillance and tracking by private actors4 Peru: In the case of Acuña v. Minera Yanacocha SRL (2020) the Constitutional Court of 4 The following Courts have also analyzed the impact of surveillance and tracking by private actors can have on freedom of expression and privacy: Belgium: Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel, 2015/57/C (2015), First Instance Court; More info here. United States: The case of Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation (2015), Appellate Court, More info here. 20