3 ms·
Dutch here. The argumentation is remarkably good. The privacy like you have with letters and phone calls is part of our constitution, and also part of European
by nomercy400 11y ago
Dutch here. The argumentation is remarkably good. The privacy like you have with letters and phone calls is part of our constitution, and also part of European guidelines. The rules to violate this privacy, only in certain cases, is already part of the law (eg. wiretaps under suspicion). ISPs have to cooperate where possible.
That the dutch intelligence services are now hampered by end-to-end encryption making the ISPs have no way to cooperate any more, is basically the problem of the intelligence services to solve, and not a legal problem. Hence, encryption stays in place.
- rambambam 11y agoHow much privacy with phone calls is there, when The Netherlands are known for having the most phone taps in the world? The formal privacy looks pretty strong indeed, government needs a warrant, etc., but at the end of the day they can do whatever they want.
- Maarten88 11y agoFrom what I hear, police here can also freely access and query all phone metadata, without the need for a warrant.
- tootie 11y agoIn the US, there are laws on the books that telecom corps are required to facilitate searches or wiretaps on client communication when presented with a court order. And if you look at the metadata collection deal that Obama passed recently, it says that the NSA can't collect metadata, but telecoms are required to do it instead and produce it when served with a court order. So, it's not at all unprecedented for government to make it a legal problem and put the onus on private industry. This is actually Hillary's most recent stance on encryption. She says if we can't "break" encryption or have backdoors, you have to give us another option. Wouldn't be surprised if Holland and others have a similar idea in mind.