4 ms·

> However with the surveillance society we live in Or you could change the US constitution so that it includes a right to privacy and data protection, like the

by rmc 11y ago

> However with the surveillance society we live in Or you could change the US constitution so that it includes a right to privacy and data protection, like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the European Convention of Human Rights

cbd1984 11y ago
It effectively does: the fourth amendment. More explicit verbiage is unlikely to matter. Besides, nobody said Europe wasn't a surveillance society.
- rmc 11y ago
  There's big differences. US 4th Amendment is similar to Article 7. However Article 8 covers things that aren't in the US constitution, e.g. the requirement for an independent authority to ensure compliance, the right to access the data, the right for it to be accurate, the requirement that data is processed fairly for specific purposes on the basis of the (informed, unambiguous) consent of the person. And the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-US people who aren't in the USA. The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that US data protection law is significantly lacking compared to CFREU. If the US 4th Amendment was the same as the CFREU then there wouldn't have been that Safe Harbour case. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_8_.E2.80.93_Protection_of_personal_data https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...
- rayiner 11y ago
  The constitution doesn't have the word privacy anywhere in it. And the 4th amendment is worded as a specific protection against " searches" and "seizures" not surveillance.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Freedom of movement isn't in there, either. Nor is the freedom to use math to secure your documents. Are you claiming these are not rights?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Freedom to use encryption I think falls squarely under the first amendment, because it's a way of communicating with other people. Freedom of movement has been held to fall under the privileges and immunities clause, which is at least plausible considering that one of the purposes of the constitution was to eliminate interstate barriers to trade. But privacy? I don't think such a right exists, at least not in its modern formulation. You can't find modern articulations of the idea in contemporaneous works. And that's a big deal. If you're going to say that a 200-year old document prohibits a democratically-elected Congress and President from setting policy, you better prove that the folks who wrote that document intended that prohibition. Democracy is supposed to be the general rule; Constitutional rights the exception.
      - Zigurd 11y ago
        You don't think it's a stretch to find freedom of movement in the privileges and immunities clause? Here it is, in its entirety: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Huh. So travel is in there but not privacy? I just love to watch the gymnastics of making rights enumerated and government powers unlimited and unrestrained except by a list of rights granted by government to the people.
        rayiner 11y ago
        The privileges and immunities clause says that states must give the same privileges to citizens of other states that they do to their own citizens. Since states have always allowed free entry and exit to their own citizens (and indeed, the right to enter is intrinsic to the concept of citizenship), it follows that states cannot restrict the freedom of citizens of other states to enter the state. And the right to travel is moreover consistent with what the framers were trying to do with the Constitution: tear down internal barriers between states. Privacy does not fit in there because no state has ever granted its own citizens the notion of privacy espoused by certain modern proponents of the "right." Nor can you read the contemporaneous works of the framers and see any discussion of this idea that people should be able to keep certain information private from the government. Instead, in the 4th amendment you see a much narrower concept: that the government shouldn't be able to trespass on your property without a warrant. Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean you can make up a right and say the Constitution protects it. The right has to come from somewhere. Otherwise, "rights" become an end-run around democracy. Oh, ACA is unconstitutional because people have a "right" not to be forced to buy health insurance. Oh, you can't require background checks for gun purchases, despite the vast majority of Americans supporting them, because the Second Amendment prohibits that.
  - Tomte 11y ago
    Same in Germany. Our Constitution Court invented a basic right to privacy in the 50s. Some years ago they got really modern and invented a second basic right, the "basic right to guarenteeing the confidentiality and integrity of data-processing systems".
    - rmc 11y ago
      Both of those things are in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Both the right to privacy and right of data protection.
      - Tomte 11y ago
        But our Court invented them as new parts of our Constitution. And the Charter post-dates the Court's decision on privacy by decades.
- rmc 11y ago
  This[1] 2015 study from the European Parliament explains how the US 4th Amendment is not at all comparable to EU data protection law (& charter rights). Basically (i) 4th doesn't apply to use EU citizens, and (ii) it, unlike the CFREU, doesn't apply to data you turn over to 3rd parties, like financial records to your bank, whereas Article 8 does. [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/519215/IPOL_STU%282015%29519215_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/51921...
madaxe_again 11y ago
Both known as "the bogeyman" in the UK and being used as an argument as to why we should leave the EU, by both politicians and press, which many appear to have already bought. The mind boggles.
- rmc 11y ago
  The ECHR was used to decriminalised homosexuality in the UK. What a bogeyman!

by rmc 11y ago

cbd1984 11y ago

It effectively does: the fourth amendment. More explicit verbiage is unlikely to matter. Besides, nobody said Europe wasn't a surveillance society.

rmc 11y ago
There's big differences. US 4th Amendment is similar to Article 7. However Article 8 covers things that aren't in the US constitution, e.g. the requirement for an independent authority to ensure compliance, the right to access the data, the right for it to be accurate, the requirement that data is processed fairly for specific purposes on the basis of the (informed, unambiguous) consent of the person. And the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-US people who aren't in the USA. The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that US data protection law is significantly lacking compared to CFREU. If the US 4th Amendment was the same as the CFREU then there wouldn't have been that Safe Harbour case. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_8_.E2.80.93_Protection_of_personal_data https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...
rayiner 11y ago
The constitution doesn't have the word privacy anywhere in it. And the 4th amendment is worded as a specific protection against " searches" and "seizures" not surveillance.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Freedom of movement isn't in there, either. Nor is the freedom to use math to secure your documents. Are you claiming these are not rights?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Freedom to use encryption I think falls squarely under the first amendment, because it's a way of communicating with other people. Freedom of movement has been held to fall under the privileges and immunities clause, which is at least plausible considering that one of the purposes of the constitution was to eliminate interstate barriers to trade. But privacy? I don't think such a right exists, at least not in its modern formulation. You can't find modern articulations of the idea in contemporaneous works. And that's a big deal. If you're going to say that a 200-year old document prohibits a democratically-elected Congress and President from setting policy, you better prove that the folks who wrote that document intended that prohibition. Democracy is supposed to be the general rule; Constitutional rights the exception.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      You don't think it's a stretch to find freedom of movement in the privileges and immunities clause? Here it is, in its entirety: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Huh. So travel is in there but not privacy? I just love to watch the gymnastics of making rights enumerated and government powers unlimited and unrestrained except by a list of rights granted by government to the people.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        The privileges and immunities clause says that states must give the same privileges to citizens of other states that they do to their own citizens. Since states have always allowed free entry and exit to their own citizens (and indeed, the right to enter is intrinsic to the concept of citizenship), it follows that states cannot restrict the freedom of citizens of other states to enter the state. And the right to travel is moreover consistent with what the framers were trying to do with the Constitution: tear down internal barriers between states. Privacy does not fit in there because no state has ever granted its own citizens the notion of privacy espoused by certain modern proponents of the "right." Nor can you read the contemporaneous works of the framers and see any discussion of this idea that people should be able to keep certain information private from the government. Instead, in the 4th amendment you see a much narrower concept: that the government shouldn't be able to trespass on your property without a warrant. Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean you can make up a right and say the Constitution protects it. The right has to come from somewhere. Otherwise, "rights" become an end-run around democracy. Oh, ACA is unconstitutional because people have a "right" not to be forced to buy health insurance. Oh, you can't require background checks for gun purchases, despite the vast majority of Americans supporting them, because the Second Amendment prohibits that.
- Tomte 11y ago
  Same in Germany. Our Constitution Court invented a basic right to privacy in the 50s. Some years ago they got really modern and invented a second basic right, the "basic right to guarenteeing the confidentiality and integrity of data-processing systems".
  - rmc 11y ago
    Both of those things are in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Both the right to privacy and right of data protection.
    - Tomte 11y ago
      But our Court invented them as new parts of our Constitution. And the Charter post-dates the Court's decision on privacy by decades.
rmc 11y ago
This[1] 2015 study from the European Parliament explains how the US 4th Amendment is not at all comparable to EU data protection law (& charter rights). Basically (i) 4th doesn't apply to use EU citizens, and (ii) it, unlike the CFREU, doesn't apply to data you turn over to 3rd parties, like financial records to your bank, whereas Article 8 does. [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/519215/IPOL_STU%282015%29519215_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/51921...

madaxe_again 11y ago

Both known as "the bogeyman" in the UK and being used as an argument as to why we should leave the EU, by both politicians and press, which many appear to have already bought. The mind boggles.

rmc 11y ago
The ECHR was used to decriminalised homosexuality in the UK. What a bogeyman!