{
  "schema_version": "uw.geo.author-local.v1",
  "catalog_id": "SYS-007",
  "language": "en",
  "revision": 1,
  "headline": "Electronic monitoring at home: where family boundaries remain",
  "description": "A person’s duty, equipment capabilities, data handling and boundaries of shared life.",
  "master_filename": "ARTICLE_EN.md",
  "master_sha256": "cf8fcec99aa1b9c8149d71c3fc812b3b5b0877e709e6f243c82f5fb058d947d1",
  "short_answer": "Monitoring one person can affect a family without making everyone an observer. Equipment capabilities, current conditions, a technical event and a competent decision differ. Privacy raises distinct questions about data and recipients; ending a regime proves no data deletion. Local powers and technical guarantees are not established.",
  "claims": [
    {
      "id": "C01",
      "type": "interpretation",
      "text": "A general label establishes neither total surveillance nor absence of a function; a 2014 document is no current device specification.",
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "I. A device's name does not establish all its capabilities"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C02",
      "type": "interpretation",
      "text": "The holder of a duty differs from affected residents; normative family attention establishes neither implementation nor local powers.",
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "II. The holder of a duty and people affected have different roles"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C03",
      "type": "interpretation",
      "text": "A record establishes no complete retention/use/access/sharing conditions; data provisions supply no universal local period or deletion.",
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "III. Collection, retention, access and sharing are different acts"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C04",
      "type": "author_observation",
      "text": "A system message establishes neither intentional breach nor technical error; event, facts and competent decision differ.",
      "source_ids": [],
      "article_sections": [
        "IV. A technical event does not describe the whole person"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C05",
      "type": "interpretation",
      "text": "Implementation, supply, support and decision have different roles; private status alone establishes neither authority nor its absence.",
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "V. Implementer, provider and decision-maker are different recipients"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C06",
      "type": "practice",
      "text": "Consent to a reminder or one conversation grants no general authority to read messages and answer everything for an adult.",
      "source_ids": [],
      "article_sections": [
        "VI. Family help should not quietly become additional surveillance"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C07",
      "type": "practice",
      "text": "Visibility makes no entire history public; images and accounts need attention to consent and purpose.",
      "source_ids": [],
      "article_sections": [
        "VIII. Telling people outside has boundaries too"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C08",
      "type": "interpretation",
      "text": "Regime end, completed technical action and records handling differ; automatic deletion is not established.",
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "IX. Ending monitoring and handling existing data need different questions"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C09",
      "type": "interpretation",
      "text": "Mill supplies a bounded personal-sphere question; colonial exclusions are not adopted and philosophical disagreement cancels no active condition.",
      "source_ids": [
        "S2"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "VII. Private life is larger than what a system measures"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "C10",
      "type": "interpretation",
      "text": "Matthew 6:1–6 supplies a bounded ethical image of value without an audience, not guaranteed secrecy, required faith, altered equipment or justified harm.",
      "source_ids": [
        "S3"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "X. Non-public need not mean unworthy, and care need not mean seeing everything"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
        "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
        "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
        "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "questions": [
    {
      "id": "Q01",
      "q": "Does a label show whether equipment hears everything or nothing?",
      "a": "No. Specific information is needed; the article establishes no capability and proposes no experiment.",
      "claim_ids": [
        "C01"
      ],
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "I. A device's name does not establish all its capabilities"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "Q02",
      "q": "Does sharing an address make the whole family supervisors?",
      "a": "No automatic conclusion. The duty holder, effects on others and their own conditions differ.",
      "claim_ids": [
        "C02"
      ],
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "II. The holder of a duty and people affected have different roles"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "Q03",
      "q": "Does an unclear alert prove deliberate breach?",
      "a": "No such conclusion. Technical error is not established either; facts and appropriate competence matter.",
      "claim_ids": [
        "C04"
      ],
      "source_ids": [],
      "article_sections": [
        "IV. A technical event does not describe the whole person"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "Q04",
      "q": "Does helping authorise reading everything and deciding for the person?",
      "a": "No. A bounded task and agreed participation are not indefinite general control.",
      "claim_ids": [
        "C06"
      ],
      "source_ids": [],
      "article_sections": [
        "VI. Family help should not quietly become additional surveillance"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "Q05",
      "q": "Are records automatically deleted when monitoring ends?",
      "a": "Not established here. Status, technical completion and subsequent handling need separate domestic grounds.",
      "claim_ids": [
        "C08"
      ],
      "source_ids": [
        "S1"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "IX. Ending monitoring and handling existing data need different questions"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "Q06",
      "q": "Does privacy require faith, perfect calm or concealing a breach?",
      "a": "No. The comparison requires neither belief nor an ideal attitude, guarantees no technology and justifies no harm.",
      "claim_ids": [
        "C09",
        "C10"
      ],
      "source_ids": [
        "S2",
        "S3"
      ],
      "article_sections": [
        "VII. Private life is larger than what a system measures",
        "X. Non-public need not mean unworthy, and care need not mean seeing everything"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "S1",
      "author": "Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers",
      "title": "Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4 on electronic monitoring",
      "url": "https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b",
      "edition": "Adopted2014-02-19,1192nd meeting; official primary6page PDF",
      "read_scope": "Complete217displayed lines read; selected scope/basic principles4–6,9–10,12,execution19/21,ethics26–28,data29–32,staff34/38,public39; not purchased memorandum or national implementation",
      "read_date": "2026-10-20",
      "rights_status": "UNKNOWN",
      "role": "Recommendation to member States in criminal justice,not universal national law or present hardware specification"
    },
    {
      "id": "S2",
      "author": "John Stuart Mill",
      "title": "On Liberty, ChapterI,selected author discussion",
      "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/34901/pg34901-images.html",
      "edition": "Gutenberg#34901,Walter Scott Publishing edition; separate introduction W.L.Courtney; ebook updated2026-10-06",
      "read_scope": "Complete selected author217–239 incl colonial/despotic exclusions not adopted; quote234,not editor introduction; no full book",
      "read_date": "2026-10-20",
      "rights_status": "GUTENBERG_US_AND_MOST_WORLD_LICENCE_LOCAL_LAW_OUTSIDE_US_NOT_ASSESSED",
      "role": "Bounded personal-sphere/interference question,not current data law or complete theory"
    },
    {
      "id": "S3",
      "author": "Gospel of Matthew / KJV",
      "title": "Matthew6:1–6",
      "url": "https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A1-6&version=KJV",
      "edition": "Bible Gateway KJV",
      "read_scope": "All6selected verses49–57 and KJV/PublicDomain63–65; not full chapter",
      "read_date": "2026-10-20",
      "rights_status": "KJV_PAGE_MARKED_PUBLIC_DOMAIN_GLOBAL_JURISDICTIONS_NOT_ASSESSED",
      "role": "Non-public charity/prayer ethical comparison; no concealment instruction or technical secrecy/required faith"
    }
  ],
  "retrieval_limits": [
    "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
    "The 2014 Council of Europe recommendation to member States is neither universal domestic law, implementation evidence nor current specification.",
    "Irina and Pavel are fictional adults; neither total surveillance nor absence of a function is established.",
    "No absolute secrecy, universal family consent, child operator duty or guaranteed safe response to pressure.",
    "Philosophical/religious comparisons supply no treatment, colonial exclusions, required belief or justification of hidden harm."
  ],
  "machine_content": {
    "summary": [
      {
        "text": "Monitoring one person can affect a family without making everyone an observer. Equipment capabilities, current conditions, a technical event and a competent decision differ. Privacy raises distinct questions about data and recipients; ending a regime proves no data deletion. Local powers and technical guarantees are not established.",
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b002",
            "quote": "Electronic monitoring can operate where ordinary family life continues. A requirement applies to one person, while equipment, visits and privacy questions affect others. This article distinguishes the person subject to a regime, technology, agency actions, data processing and the lives of people nearby. It is for an adult under monitoring and people living with or helping them. It provides no bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, device configuration or independent alteration of conditions. A general label establishes neither equipment capabilities nor the lawfulness of a particular request. Privacy is not promised as absolute secrecy, and kinship supplies no permission to observe everything. A Council of Europe recommendation is used within its edition and scope, rather than as every country's law or proof of implementation. Philosophical and religious texts question the limits of observability without requiring faith or endurance of pressure. The aim is clear roles and human boundaries, without turning technical uncertainty into confirmed safety or universal surveillance."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b028",
            "quote": "Someone may ask for a reminder or help understanding an explanation. Such consent has a subject. It gives no automatic authority to read correspondence, require constant availability or manage every contact. The official regime and a family agreement differ. Mixing them can add demands without either a clear basis or a freely agreed scope to the duty already imposed on the person concerned."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b006",
            "quote": "Two questions differ: what is required of a person, and what a technical system does. Knowing a function does not by itself determine a legal duty. A written duty also does not explain every capability. A useful answer needs the appropriate subject. “It is all standard” may leave unknown matters unknown, establishing neither a violation nor a sufficient explanation of the particular conditions."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b018",
            "quote": "A system message, record or alert concerns a particular technical event. It is not a completed account of motives, relationships and identity. The article determines no system's accuracy and provides no catalogue of faults. Technical subject, factual circumstances and a competent decision differ. Information may be needed between them that general writing cannot obtain or verify for the person concerned in a particular situation."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b013",
            "quote": "“What data exists?” does not exhaust privacy. Who receives it, for what purpose, with whom it is shared and how long it is retained are further questions. A technical record establishes none of these conditions in full. Lack of an answer about sharing also does not prove unrestricted circulation. The article distinguishes questions needing an appropriate basis rather than building a particular system's map from guesses."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b043",
            "quote": "A regime ending, technical work completed and subsequent use of records are different events. One cannot automatically establish the others. The article determines neither a deletion deadline nor the competent decision-maker in a country. Timing, authority and actual implementation need their own grounds. A family cannot be promised that one change necessarily removes everything collected or, conversely, makes the records publicly available after the regime ends."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "topics": [
      {
        "text": "A monitoring label establishes no capability; a requirement and equipment need different information.",
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b003",
            "quote": "“Electronic monitoring” may suggest that someone knows everything, hears each conversation or sees only a movement. None follows from the general label alone. Equipment, active conditions and data processing require specific information. An imagined capability is no fact because technology looks complex. Equally, a function not visibly apparent is not thereby proved absent. Both reassurance and concern need an appropriate factual basis."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b006",
            "quote": "Two questions differ: what is required of a person, and what a technical system does. Knowing a function does not by itself determine a legal duty. A written duty also does not explain every capability. A useful answer needs the appropriate subject. “It is all standard” may leave unknown matters unknown, establishing neither a violation nor a sufficient explanation of the particular conditions."
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "One person’s duty, family interests and agreed support are distinct.",
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b008",
            "quote": "A requirement imposed on one person can change a household's life. Its effects on others and the extent of their own duties are nevertheless different questions. Sharing an address does not establish who must answer every request or who may obtain all personal information. The article determines no local family law. It distinguishes the monitored person from everyone who happens to live nearby."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b010",
            "quote": "Paragraph 6 of the [2014 recommendation](https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b) specifically addresses effects on the rights and interests of families and third parties at the residence. This is a normative reference, not confirmation those interests were considered. It cannot establish every visit lawful or every request unlawful. Actual authority, grounds, subject and local conditions matter; a general standard does not complete their examination for an individual household."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b028",
            "quote": "Someone may ask for a reminder or help understanding an explanation. Such consent has a subject. It gives no automatic authority to read correspondence, require constant availability or manage every contact. The official regime and a family agreement differ. Mixing them can add demands without either a clear basis or a freely agreed scope to the duty already imposed on the person concerned."
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "Collection, access, use and sharing differ from a regime ending and technical work.",
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b013",
            "quote": "“What data exists?” does not exhaust privacy. Who receives it, for what purpose, with whom it is shared and how long it is retained are further questions. A technical record establishes none of these conditions in full. Lack of an answer about sharing also does not prove unrestricted circulation. The article distinguishes questions needing an appropriate basis rather than building a particular system's map from guesses."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b043",
            "quote": "A regime ending, technical work completed and subsequent use of records are different events. One cannot automatically establish the others. The article determines neither a deletion deadline nor the competent decision-maker in a country. Timing, authority and actual implementation need their own grounds. A family cannot be promised that one change necessarily removes everything collected or, conversely, makes the records publicly available after the regime ends."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "claims": [
      {
        "text": "A general label establishes neither total surveillance nor absence of a function; a 2014 document is no current device specification.",
        "status": "interpretation",
        "source_ids": [
          "S1"
        ],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b003",
            "quote": "“Electronic monitoring” may suggest that someone knows everything, hears each conversation or sees only a movement. None follows from the general label alone. Equipment, active conditions and data processing require specific information. An imagined capability is no fact because technology looks complex. Equally, a function not visibly apparent is not thereby proved absent. Both reassurance and concern need an appropriate factual basis."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b005",
            "quote": "The [Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4](https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b) concerns electronic monitoring in criminal justice. Adopted on 19 February 2014, it is a Committee of Ministers recommendation to member States, not automatically law everywhere. Its dated technology descriptions establish no current device's specification. The normative role here concerns limits and rights rather than technical examination of Irina's equipment or proof that her arrangement follows the recommendation."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": [
          {
            "text": "No independent experiments with connections, configuration or placement are required.",
            "evidence": [
              {
                "block_id": "b007",
                "quote": "Uncertainty requires no personal experiment with connections, configuration or equipment placement. No instructions for such tests are offered. Technical help needs an appropriate arrangement and competence. General information obtained, a request made and an uncertainty actually resolved are separate results. Neither anxiety nor a relative's reassuring attitude replaces information about the actual equipment, the current regime or an appropriate authorised way to address a problem."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "The holder of a duty differs from affected residents; normative family attention establishes neither implementation nor local powers.",
        "status": "interpretation",
        "source_ids": [
          "S1"
        ],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b008",
            "quote": "A requirement imposed on one person can change a household's life. Its effects on others and the extent of their own duties are nevertheless different questions. Sharing an address does not establish who must answer every request or who may obtain all personal information. The article determines no local family law. It distinguishes the monitored person from everyone who happens to live nearby."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b010",
            "quote": "Paragraph 6 of the [2014 recommendation](https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b) specifically addresses effects on the rights and interests of families and third parties at the residence. This is a normative reference, not confirmation those interests were considered. It cannot establish every visit lawful or every request unlawful. Actual authority, grounds, subject and local conditions matter; a general standard does not complete their examination for an individual household."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": []
      },
      {
        "text": "A record establishes no complete retention/use/access/sharing conditions; data provisions supply no universal local period or deletion.",
        "status": "interpretation",
        "source_ids": [
          "S1"
        ],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b013",
            "quote": "“What data exists?” does not exhaust privacy. Who receives it, for what purpose, with whom it is shared and how long it is retained are further questions. A technical record establishes none of these conditions in full. Lack of an answer about sharing also does not prove unrestricted circulation. The article distinguishes questions needing an appropriate basis rather than building a particular system's map from guesses."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b015",
            "quote": "Section VI of [CM/Rec(2014)4](https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b) addresses data protection, including retention, use, sharing and private-sector handling. These are normative provisions, not a description of a local database. They establish no particular retention period, independent deletion authority or access procedure everywhere. Such questions need applicable information rather than confidence derived from an international document's name. A general reference supplies no complete answer for this household."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": [
          {
            "text": "A data request does not establish actual protection or changed handling.",
            "evidence": [
              {
                "block_id": "b017",
                "quote": "A data request and its result also differ. Was a question sent, an explanation received, a suitable recipient identified or handling actually changed? Each event has its own scope. The article promises no response to a universal form. It preserves unresolved matters without assuming either that sending a request already protects privacy or that any missing detail proves protection absent. An answer needs examination for what it actually establishes."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "A system message establishes neither intentional breach nor technical error; event, facts and competent decision differ.",
        "status": "author_observation",
        "source_ids": [],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b018",
            "quote": "A system message, record or alert concerns a particular technical event. It is not a completed account of motives, relationships and identity. The article determines no system's accuracy and provides no catalogue of faults. Technical subject, factual circumstances and a competent decision differ. Information may be needed between them that general writing cannot obtain or verify for the person concerned in a particular situation."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b019",
            "quote": "Irina receives an unclear message; Pavel immediately calls it proof of intentional breach. There is no basis here to confirm that account or the opposite explanation of technical error. Missing facts should remain missing. Where appropriate support is needed, its subject can be the message and circumstances of receipt, without independently interfering with equipment or constructing an invented explanation for the agency to accept."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": [
          {
            "text": "Technical explanation cancels no duty; the support norm establishes no available specialist.",
            "evidence": [
              {
                "block_id": "b020",
                "quote": "A technical answer and a decision about compliance may involve different roles. One professional may explain equipment, another consider a condition or event. This article establishes no agency's structure. A technical explanation should not automatically become cancellation of a duty, nor an official requirement a complete explanation of technology. Competence has a subject and cannot be inferred solely from a confident manner or general institutional affiliation."
              },
              {
                "block_id": "b021",
                "quote": "Paragraphs 34 and 38 of the [recommendation](https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b) concern understandable communication and staff preparation for technical support. A norm establishes neither an available specialist nor achieved understanding. A system record cannot replace appropriate human involvement. This also promises no absence of consequences and offers no test of monitoring accuracy through a breach or simulation. Professional assessment and technical clarification have their separate tasks."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "Implementation, supply, support and decision have different roles; private status alone establishes neither authority nor its absence.",
        "status": "interpretation",
        "source_ids": [
          "S1"
        ],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b023",
            "quote": "Electronic monitoring may connect a person with several participants. Who decides, who deals with implementation and who provides technical help cannot be resolved by “the agency”. This article determines no particular visitor's powers. Association with equipment does not establish authority to change a condition or receive the family's entire account. The relevant role and the subject of a specific action need their own basis."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b025",
            "quote": "Paragraphs 9–10 of [CM/Rec(2014)4](https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b) address private organisations and continuing public responsibility. This is a normative scope, not proof of actual functions in a place. Private involvement does not make every commercial worker's request authorised. Private status also establishes no absence of a lawful role. Organisation name and particular action should remain distinct facts, without a ready conclusion from either public or private status alone."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": []
      },
      {
        "text": "Consent to a reminder or one conversation grants no general authority to read messages and answer everything for an adult.",
        "status": "practice",
        "source_ids": [],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b028",
            "quote": "Someone may ask for a reminder or help understanding an explanation. Such consent has a subject. It gives no automatic authority to read correspondence, require constant availability or manage every contact. The official regime and a family agreement differ. Mixing them can add demands without either a clear basis or a freely agreed scope to the duty already imposed on the person concerned."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b029",
            "quote": "Pavel agrees to join one conversation. Irina can accept that participation without authorising him to answer everything for her. A clarified or narrower request establishes neither deception nor ingratitude. He can name his limits or decline what he cannot undertake. His practical boundary nevertheless does not make Irina incapable of every independent decision or create an indefinite right to decide what she should need and disclose."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": [
          {
            "text": "No automatic child-operator role; family anxiety justifies no threat.",
            "evidence": [
              {
                "block_id": "b030",
                "quote": "Children and other dependants should not be assumed operators or observers because they live there. This article determines no individual protection measure and offers no medical or family diagnosis. Its narrower boundary is that adults' difficulties do not automatically make a child responsible for equipment or adult demands. Particular rights and wellbeing questions need appropriate competent help, rather than an improvised duty based on who is at home."
              },
              {
                "block_id": "b031",
                "quote": "Family anxiety does not justify threats. Demands to disclose everything or endure humiliation “to avoid problems” remain separate acts. Official monitoring does not automatically make them lawful or helpful. No risky resistance or universally safe phrase is offered. Present safety, official duty and a relationship needing different support are distinct subjects. Recognition of one does not complete the others or grant either participant unrestricted control."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "Visibility makes no entire history public; images and accounts need attention to consent and purpose.",
        "status": "practice",
        "source_ids": [],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b038",
            "quote": "Visible equipment may prompt questions from neighbours, acquaintances or colleagues. Interest establishes no right to the entire history. The article offers no universal answer guaranteeing an absence of consequences. Necessary information for a task, a chosen personal conversation and unagreed circulation differ. One visible fact makes neither every other detail public nor curiosity an authority over the person whose circumstances are being discussed."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b040",
            "quote": "An equipment or document image may disclose more than intended. No particular identifiers, security configuration or image-editing technique is described. Public documentation is not a required route to assistance. Sharing another person's information needs attention to consent and an appropriate purpose. Official provenance alone supplies no unrestricted publication permission, nor does a helpful intention determine every possible effect of circulation on the people concerned."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": [
          {
            "text": "A visible sign establishes neither guilt nor a complete status.",
            "evidence": [
              {
                "block_id": "b041",
                "quote": "Monitoring also establishes neither guilt nor a complete status from one visible sign. The source considers different criminal-process stages; actual grounds are unknown here. A relative need not complete the gap through guesses to make a coherent story. Preserving limited knowledge is more accurate than assigning an unconfirmed role or presenting any monitoring as proof of a particular offence and the person's inward character."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "Regime end, completed technical action and records handling differ; automatic deletion is not established.",
        "status": "interpretation",
        "source_ids": [
          "S1"
        ],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b043",
            "quote": "A regime ending, technical work completed and subsequent use of records are different events. One cannot automatically establish the others. The article determines neither a deletion deadline nor the competent decision-maker in a country. Timing, authority and actual implementation need their own grounds. A family cannot be promised that one change necessarily removes everything collected or, conversely, makes the records publicly available after the regime ends."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b044",
            "quote": "Irina hears monitoring might end. Possibility differs from an effective decision and from a completed technical action. No independent removal or disconnection on an anticipated date is advised. An appropriate arrangement needs a competent basis. A relative's friendly congratulations confirm neither completion of every formal and technical stage nor what currently applies. Hope can matter without being reported as a status already established."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b045",
            "quote": "The [recommendation's data section](https://rm.coe.int/09000016800cc24b) retains a separate subject of storage, use and sharing. It supplies no particular national post-monitoring period here. That needs the appropriate source and recipient, without independently destroying records or assuming every record must last forever. A normative reference helps separate questions rather than selecting an answer without domestic grounds or verifying that a particular action has occurred."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": [
          {
            "text": "No independent removal or disconnection on an anticipated date.",
            "evidence": [
              {
                "block_id": "b044",
                "quote": "Irina hears monitoring might end. Possibility differs from an effective decision and from a completed technical action. No independent removal or disconnection on an anticipated date is advised. An appropriate arrangement needs a competent basis. A relative's friendly congratulations confirm neither completion of every formal and technical stage nor what currently applies. Hope can matter without being reported as a status already established."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "Mill supplies a bounded personal-sphere question; colonial exclusions are not adopted and philosophical disagreement cancels no active condition.",
        "status": "interpretation",
        "source_ids": [
          "S2"
        ],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b035",
            "quote": "Chapter I of [Mill's On Liberty](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/34901/pg34901-images.html) distinguishes the personal sphere and effects on others. This is historical philosophy, not contemporary data law. Its bounded relevance is a question about limits of interference. The chapter also contains historical exclusions and justification of colonial despotism. Those are not adopted as rules for present people or used to assign different dignity to different groups."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b036",
            "quote": "The philosophical question permits no disregard of an active condition merely through disagreement. Compliance also does not establish a measure morally justified. Applicable arrangements, competent clarification and discussion of authority's limits have different tasks. The article selects no legal position. It keeps a person larger than control without declaring an inward attitude a guarantee of external freedom, an exemption or a reliable way to prevent harm."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": [
          {
            "text": "No required perfect calm, prescribed family emotion or anxiety treatment.",
            "evidence": [
              {
                "block_id": "b037",
                "quote": "Ordinary life need not depend on performing perfect calm. Nobody must prove monitoring leaves them unaffected, and no correct family emotion is prescribed. This is neither diagnosis nor a technique for removing anxiety. Participation and respect may matter amid uncertainty without erasing practical needs for information, professional contact and clear conditions. Recognising human life does not make those external needs unnecessary or establish them already met."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "text": "Matthew 6:1–6 supplies a bounded ethical image of value without an audience, not guaranteed secrecy, required faith, altered equipment or justified harm.",
        "status": "interpretation",
        "source_ids": [
          "S3"
        ],
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b048",
            "quote": "In [Matthew 6:1–6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A1-6&version=KJV), charity and prayer are discussed apart from seeking public approval. This is a religious text, not an instruction to conceal prescribed information or proof that a closed space is secure. The bounded ethical comparison concerns value not always needing an audience. Belief and religious practice become no conditions for respect for a person's privacy."
          },
          {
            "block_id": "b049",
            "quote": "The image makes neither every secret virtuous nor harm to others justified. It does not assume everyone has a separate room or can shut a door. It supplies no instruction to alter equipment for solitude. Personal space may be needed where actual conditions are restricted. That need should not depend on someone's ability to create ideal protection immediately through personal effort, or on demonstrating an impossible absence of vulnerability."
          }
        ],
        "qualifiers": []
      }
    ],
    "limitations": [
      {
        "text": "No bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, specific configuration or independent alteration of conditions is instructed.",
        "evidence": [
          {
            "block_id": "b002",
            "quote": "Electronic monitoring can operate where ordinary family life continues. A requirement applies to one person, while equipment, visits and privacy questions affect others. This article distinguishes the person subject to a regime, technology, agency actions, data processing and the lives of people nearby. It is for an adult under monitoring and people living with or helping them. It provides no bypass, disconnection, concealed movement, device configuration or independent alteration of conditions. A general label establishes neither equipment capabilities nor the lawfulness of a particular request. Privacy is not promised as absolute secrecy, and kinship supplies no permission to observe everything. A Council of Europe recommendation is used within its edition and scope, rather than as every country's law or proof of implementation. Philosophical and religious texts question the limits of observability without requiring faith or endurance of pressure. The aim is clear roles and human boundaries, without turning technical uncertainty into confirmed safety or universal surveillance."
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  },
  "evidence_blocks_filename": "BLOCKS_EN.json",
  "evidence_blocks_sha256": "6ae19867296a16535e83da474c1ba253e2ca905dc374e76e42a11edc153c5d45",
  "production_compatibility": "NOT_RUN",
  "server_auto_acceptance": "NOT_RUN",
  "schema_org": {
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "Article",
    "identifier": "UW:SYS-007:en",
    "inLanguage": "en",
    "headline": "Electronic monitoring at home: where family boundaries remain",
    "author": [
      {
        "@type": "Person",
        "name": "Andrey Zarinsh"
      },
      {
        "@type": "Person",
        "name": "Maria Evilkut"
      }
    ]
  }
}