4 ms·

I 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

by hobs 11y ago

I 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.

mtgx 11y ago
Here's exactly what I was talking about: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/terrorism-act-incompatible-with-human-rights-court-rules-in-david-miranda-case http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/terrorism-act-i... Unrelated, but it shows that the UK courts care about ECHR rulings. And the standing thing usually happens in the US, not in Europe. European courts rule a lot more on "principle" of doing something, and it matters less if the people accusing the state were involved or not. What matters is evidence that the government did or didn't do something (like mass spying), not whether John Doe was affected by it. If mass spying is illegal under the European human rights laws, and the governments are found to have engaged in it then the only possible outcome is that they broke the law. Why should it matter if it affected this guy or that guy? I really think the "no standing" excuse is a very poor one, as it effectively guarantees people have no redress against secret spying against them. That's not what a democratic country should be allowing. There needs to be judicial redress for everything. Heck, I think the US is about to pass a law that gives EU citizens/foreigners judicial redress against US spying, but the Americans still won't get that. It just goes to show it is possible to have redress, it's just the powers that be don't want you to have it. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1428 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1428 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1600 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/160...

by hobs 11y ago

mtgx 11y ago

Here's exactly what I was talking about: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/terrorism-act-incompatible-with-human-rights-court-rules-in-david-miranda-case http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/terrorism-act-i... Unrelated, but it shows that the UK courts care about ECHR rulings. And the standing thing usually happens in the US, not in Europe. European courts rule a lot more on "principle" of doing something, and it matters less if the people accusing the state were involved or not. What matters is evidence that the government did or didn't do something (like mass spying), not whether John Doe was affected by it. If mass spying is illegal under the European human rights laws, and the governments are found to have engaged in it then the only possible outcome is that they broke the law. Why should it matter if it affected this guy or that guy? I really think the "no standing" excuse is a very poor one, as it effectively guarantees people have no redress against secret spying against them. That's not what a democratic country should be allowing. There needs to be judicial redress for everything. Heck, I think the US is about to pass a law that gives EU citizens/foreigners judicial redress against US spying, but the Americans still won't get that. It just goes to show it is possible to have redress, it's just the powers that be don't want you to have it. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1428 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1428 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1600 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/160...