5 ms·
Did European Court Just Outlaw “Massive Monitoring of Communications” in Europe?
- umanwizard 11y agoForgive the nitpick, but it's an important distinction: this is the European Court of Human Rights, not the "Eu" [sic] court of anything. It is a separate institution from the EU and has non-EU adherents, like Russia for example. Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be able to flaunt it with impunity.
- junto 11y ago> Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be able to flaunt it with impunity. I don't think that is true. As it stand today, EU members are obliged to integrate these rulings into national law. It is one of the major nitpicks of the British Conservative party backbenchers, who wish to remove the United Kingdom from the "control" of the EHCR. This statement below sums it up better than I can: > The Council of Europe has also made clear that the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, is not a substitute for national courts, but is subsidiary to national systems that safeguard human rights. The principles of law of the European Union, known as Community Law or European Union Law, also have direct effect in national courts, as European Union Law takes precedence over national law in EU member States. For these reasons, individuals and groups alleging violations of human rights provisions are required to first exhaust domestic remedies before a case can be considered admissible by a European tribunal. http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_european_human_rights_system http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_europea...
- rmc 11y agoYes, but it can take years before countries have to do anything. Ireland has often waited years before implementing rulings, (e.g. for decriminalisation of homosexuality)
- denis1 11y agoYet it is still better than nothing. After the ECHR decision, the citizens should be able to challenge laws that do not respect their rights, and the governments can't hide behind stupid reasons that ignore the ruling of ECHR.
- ricksplat 11y agoYes - and this is often the case. There has been cases where legal decisions in Ireland have been appealed to the EUCHR and the decision there has overruled the Irish one. For instance http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/european-court-of-human-rights-underused-in-irish-law-lecturer-1.2083248 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/european-c...
- masklinn 11y agoAnd countries will also try to weasel out of rulings on other countries (which apply pretty much verbatim to them) until the ECHR rules specifically against them[0] e.g. France asserting that Salduz v Turkey and Dayanan v Turkey (right to remain silent and to a lawyer from the earliest stages of even temporary custody) didn't apply to it because the rulings were against Turkey. [0] or their supreme court tells the government to lay off the crack pipe
- pjc50 11y agoRussia is ahead of the UK on that one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35007059 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35007059 "Russia passes law to overrule European human rights court" because it ruled that Russian surveillance of newspaper editors was a human rights violation.
- ajuc 11y agoAt least the violations are obvious when countries have to pass law to bypass this ruling.
- venomsnake 11y agoThe only ways to obligate a country to do something is to have other country willing to impose sanctions or war. And no one is willing to do that inside or outside EU.
- restalis 11y ago"EU members are obliged to integrate these rulings into national law." No! Any court's mandate is to resolve disputes according to the existing laws. It is not to issue/create them. The lawmakers are the ones that may use the judicial system as a quality assurance mechanism for their adopted laws and maybe to consider fixing something along the way. A court is merely a hand of law, not a law maker. So, getting back to the European Court of Human Rights, there is a set of stipulations under the name of Human Rights that the adherent countries already endorsed and (supposedly) adopted into their national laws. There aren't any rulings to be integrated into national laws, there may exist only rulings (compatible with existing laws) that need merely enforcement on local level!
- denis1 11y agoI believe post you're replying to is in fact correct. In cases when national laws are not compatible with ECHR rulings, the laws are the one to be changed (repealed or adjusted to match the ECHR interpretation).
- dang 11y agoWe changed the submitted title from "Did the Eu Court of Human Rights Outlaw “Massive Monitoring of Communications”?", but not without sympathizing with the effort to get it down to 80 chars or less.
- timthorn 11y agoIn the UK at least, ECHR is a fairly well known acronym - but I appreciate that might not communicate the story well to a broader audience.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoJust a nit pick the correct name is the "European Court of Human Rights". It is not actually an EU court. Countries like Russia and I think Turkey are part of it and they are not EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights
- contingencies 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headline...
- quarterto 11y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5742893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5742893
- vmateixeira 11y agoPure evil...
- mpweiher 11y agoExcept here the answer is YES. And they've done it several times before, but governments keep ignoring the rulings. I wonder if entire governments can be jailed for contempt of court...
- rplnt 11y agoI wonder if they can be jailed for signing concordat[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat
- richmarr 11y agoThe author must have got the headline wrong... should have been something like: "Will ECHR banning mass surveillance make any difference?"
- kbart 11y agoA great gesture, but sadly I'm sure all these national letter agencies will find a loophole in laws or pass some bills to push their agenda anyway. You know as a usual story goes -- "but terrorists!", "think of the children!" etc. Enforcing EHCR ruling was never a strong side, on the way of it becoming a national law (if ever), it often gets diluted or (purposely) misinterpreted.
- sdoering 11y agoAnd even if it does, even after clearly stating, that what they do/did is illegal, our national security agencies (BND in Germany) just go on doing their thing. What our parliamentarian investigation committee keeps finding does nothing to stop these practices. And why should it - imho they (national security agencies and respective politicians) have clearly left the space of the law, as it does only apply to them on paper, not in reality. I got cynical and fatalistic during the last years - and I do not see any real chance for a democracy left. We are living in post democratic times, where democracy is only there as a play being shown for the people, to keep them placated. Sorry, for my mood.
- jacquesm 11y ago> We are living in post democratic times, where democracy is only there as a play being shown for the people, to keep them placated. Democracy has always been only a partial implementation of one. The Swiss come closest, every other so-called democratic country is so only in name and always has some provisions to limit the direct impact a vote can have on how society operates. This has both good and bad side-effects, the bad ones seem to be the majority both in number and gravity. One large problem is that political systems are very slow to change once they are established, their founding documents take on some kind of religious aura and to question them and or those that laid them down is made tantamount to treason.
- tremon 11y agoOne large problem is that political systems are very slow to change once they are established This is mostly a good thing. However, the boiling frog approach is still available. So society must be vigilant and vocal about every small step in the wrong direction. Hopefully, this ruling will reinvigorate some of the debates. I know many defenders have become numb to the relentless attacks on individual freedoms (it can be seen in some of the comments here too).
- bede 11y agoGiven that our Home Secretary recently stated that 'the UK does not undertake mass surveillance' to the investigatory powers government committee, I can't see this having any semblance of an effect (over here, at least).
- JulianMorrison 11y agoI suspect the legal trick they'll rely on is: "we collect in bulk, but surveillance within that giant haystack of data is only ever aimed at particular persons. We don't want or use the totality of it, but we do need it so we can monitor retroactively." Which I'd understand, but think they are throwing too much away in pursuit of too little. Still it's how they'll try and dodge. Well, that or "we don't need human rights anyway, can't make us, so neener neener."
- spacecowboy_lon 11y agoWill be interesting how the recent monitoring at work judgement will interact with this.
- qubex 11y agoUnder subsequent cross-examination, she might state that they don't regularly weigh the whole national population.
- kzrdude 11y agoIt's a lie, and it's not even certain it's a legal lie until a court has ruled on it.
- mtgx 11y agoThe UK executive may say whatever it wants, but if it's sued and the Court takes into account what the ECHR said (as it should), then it should lose.
- hobs 11y agoI expect things like the USA government does, such as surveil you and then when you take them to court say that you don't have enough evidence/standing to prove they did anything. Intelligence agencies monitoring is almost impossible to show if they use techniques like parallel reconstruction.