6 ms·
be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces
by m_mueller 8y ago
be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.
- AstralStorm 8y agoThis would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc. Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors. (Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
- C1sc0cat 8y agoThat would depend on the wording and on legal precedent in the UK some civil service pensioners had changes to their pensions because the wording of the scheme of arrangement used a different three letter word than some other pensioners.
- m_mueller 8y agoWhen it comes to surveillance I don't put any trust in the system other than what's strictly allowed / disallowed according to law text. Remember Fichen?
- _nalply 8y agoYes, you are right. Then the opposing committee would point this out in their explanation.
- m_mueller 8y agoPeople tend to trust the government much more than opposition committees.