6 ms·

Switzerland has this in its constitution: Article 13: Right to Privacy 1. All persons have the right to receive respect for their private and family life, hom

Switzerland has this in its constitution: Article 13: Right to Privacy 1. All persons have the right to receive respect for their private and family life, home, and secrecy of the mails and telecommunications. 2. All persons have the right to be protected against the abuse of personal data. Also the constitution can be only changed by voting.

elmo2you 6y ago
Plenty of countries (if not most) have this or something similar, anchored in either their constitution or at least in regular law. This should not come as a surprise either, since it's essentially the implementation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Where it usually goes wrong, is with the interpretation of the words "privacy" and "communication". Also, governments have a habit of defining exceptional situations in which these laws can be violated in the name of some supposedly higher purpose (e.g. national security). Strictly speaking, the UDHR is rather clear about one thing: the declared human rights are inalienable (meaning, they can neither be taken away nor be given away freely), so all the exceptions are essentially bullshit excuses. Those should not exist in the first place, at least not according to the "inalienably" part of "inalienable human rights". Additionally, there is no law/treaty that explains why modern technologies should not be subject to Article 12. While plenty of governments/businesses would like to convince people otherwise, almost everything we do online is strictly speaking telecommunication of some sort or another. The sad truth is that pretty much all of today's online privacy issues are strictly speaking in violation of the UDHR. There is just way too much at stake for businesses and governments alike for them to ever acknowledge it. It doesn't change that they are blatantly violating a treaty they signed, ratified and should be upholding though.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  Notably the US has no right to privacy, except a very vague implied right which as far as I know has only been invoked in the context of abortion.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    It certainly doesn’t help that the Constitution has more or less ossified over the past couple decades, with amendments becoming rarer and rarer. Heck, the last one has its origins as an academic exercise.
  - buzzert 6y ago
    4th amendment to the constitution? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      Actually Roe vs Wade implied the right to privacy from the 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The alternative "right to privacy" has been found by other cases in the generic 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
        The 14th amendment is usually the basis of any case where a constitutional right binds a state government. Prior to its adoption, they were usually considered to only bind the federal government.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      The (generally accepted) argument is that it's implicit in a number of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. It's not explicit however as Robert Bork argued during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings to his detriment. I think Griswold v. Connecticut is still considered the primary ruling on the matter.
- ketzu 6y ago
  The universal declaration of human rights 12 [1] contains the very important word "arbitrary" as a qualifier of privacy violations. > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. One reason for this has broad applicability: Even inalienable human rights can be in conflict with each other. So solutions must weight them against each other, but will ultimately violate one or more of the clashing rights. The UDHR also recognizes the that even the article 3 "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" is limited as in so far people may be arrested (and therefore deprived of their freedom) by giving the explicit article 9 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Again, with the arbitrary qualifier. I believe, recognizing that even these funamental rights clash with each other is important. Often I feel that online discussion have each side pick the one in favor of their position and ignoring that other rights are in conflict with that position. But as you said, it is also important to recognize that there are bullshit excuses. [1] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    If you do it to everyone, is it still arbitrary?
    - elmo2you 6y ago
      Yes, it can be (depending on what you do). Arbitrary doesn't just mean treating individuals differently (discrimination) without a proper legal justification. It also applies to any government or business that overextends their legal mandate, by subjecting people (even if equally) to limitations that have no legal basis. I'm well aware that this rather quickly conflicts with some almost religious belief that anything can be limited through contracts, EULAs and TOSes (as long as its done voluntarily). When people have alternatives, without such limitations, one can argue that people still have a freedom to do things differently. When a product or service becomes some kind of necessity, or not using it somehow becomes a personal limitation of its own, then such contractual limitation essentially have just created a new "law" outside of the only official process that is supposed to govern the creation of laws. Businesses who create rules that essentially function like "private law", and governments who create laws without proper legal mandate/justification, are guilty of arbitrary behavior. Not because they treat individual people differently, but because their treatment all people is itself an arbitrary choice. As in, it lacks legal justification and goes beyond the legal authority that such a government or business has.
dheera 6y ago
> All persons have the right to receive respect for their private and family life, home, and secrecy of the mails and telecommunications. I really wish the US had this. Here, even simple acts like registering to vote or getting a driver license, bank account, credit card means your personal residence gets leaked to spammers, scammers, data brokers, and eventually, stalkers. There really should be laws saying that personal addresses cannot be given to third parties without explicit, optional, opt-in consent.
- ghaff 6y ago
  The information in voter registration isn't "leaked." It's public as a matter of record. (The details probably vary by state.) So are real estate purchases. (Although the latter can be gotten around in various ways.) There are tradeoffs between transparency and privacy.
  - dheera 6y ago
    That's a problem. If I knew it was going to be given out, I would probably have not registered to vote, and I wasn't told about that by the people who helped me register. I don't think I agreed to any ToS that said that my address would be available to the public. As much as I think voter turnout is important, making personal addresses accessible to the public crosses the line for me.
- KirillPanov 6y ago
  I'm thinking of buying a condemned, uninhabitable house in a tax foreclosure auction simply so I can list it as my residential address. Most places that demand a utility bill will accept a property tax bill, so it doesn't even have to have working water/power (the cheapest doomshacks have both shut off). You'd be surprised how cheap some of these places are. But it does have to show up as "residential" in the USPS databases.
  - dheera 6y ago
    My best solution right now is a UPS box, which gives you a proper street address. Most places that ask for utility bills will accept a phone bill or insurance bill or some such which you can have arranged to be sent to that address. I'd be interested to know if there are similar services that are cheaper and ideally less well-known than UPS but equally reliable. Delivery to my real address with the ability to trust them with my real address would also be cool to have. BTW -- if you have cash to burn, I'd think that renting a cheap studio somewhere that you don't actually live in (and as a bonus, can use as a storage unit, or sublease to someone if the lease allows) would be cheaper and more peace-of-mind than dealing with property taxes, crime, pests, and other issues around an uninhabitable house in your name.
101008 6y ago
So taking a screenshot of a Instagram convesation and sharing on Twitter or Facebook or whenever is ilegal and against the constitution?
- jeffrallen 6y ago
  Yes, and in fact avoiding abuses like this are part of the digital education offered in school. People are also pretty careful about asking for permission before publishing a person's photo. Swiss discretion is not only a marketing tactic, it is also a good habit many people keep.
  - dghughes 6y ago
    >...avoiding abuses like this are part of the digital education offered in school. I would hope that schools teach "don't publish anything you don't want shared" that would be smarter. If I post an add in a newspaper, many copies are sold, and then someone copies my add that should be expected. The Internet is one big newspaper it's a public forum and privacy shouldn't be expected or assumed.
  - 101008 6y ago
    So, for example, let's say I am a married guy hitting another woman. If this woman screenshots these chats and want to publish them on Instagram or even share them with my wife, that would be ilegal and they could be in trouble?
    - berkes 6y ago
      As far as I'm aware, none of the platforms you mention allow this, even. Regardless of laws, their T&C clearly forbid sharing private data of others.
nemoniac 6y ago
The European Union has the GDPR which offers protection of privacy and personal data. Mail and telecoms are covered by other legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

elmo2you 6y ago

Plenty of countries (if not most) have this or something similar, anchored in either their constitution or at least in regular law. This should not come as a surprise either, since it's essentially the implementation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Where it usually goes wrong, is with the interpretation of the words "privacy" and "communication". Also, governments have a habit of defining exceptional situations in which these laws can be violated in the name of some supposedly higher purpose (e.g. national security). Strictly speaking, the UDHR is rather clear about one thing: the declared human rights are inalienable (meaning, they can neither be taken away nor be given away freely), so all the exceptions are essentially bullshit excuses. Those should not exist in the first place, at least not according to the "inalienably" part of "inalienable human rights". Additionally, there is no law/treaty that explains why modern technologies should not be subject to Article 12. While plenty of governments/businesses would like to convince people otherwise, almost everything we do online is strictly speaking telecommunication of some sort or another. The sad truth is that pretty much all of today's online privacy issues are strictly speaking in violation of the UDHR. There is just way too much at stake for businesses and governments alike for them to ever acknowledge it. It doesn't change that they are blatantly violating a treaty they signed, ratified and should be upholding though.

akvadrako 6y ago
Notably the US has no right to privacy, except a very vague implied right which as far as I know has only been invoked in the context of abortion.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  It certainly doesn’t help that the Constitution has more or less ossified over the past couple decades, with amendments becoming rarer and rarer. Heck, the last one has its origins as an academic exercise.
- buzzert 6y ago
  4th amendment to the constitution? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    Actually Roe vs Wade implied the right to privacy from the 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The alternative "right to privacy" has been found by other cases in the generic 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      The 14th amendment is usually the basis of any case where a constitutional right binds a state government. Prior to its adoption, they were usually considered to only bind the federal government.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    The (generally accepted) argument is that it's implicit in a number of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. It's not explicit however as Robert Bork argued during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings to his detriment. I think Griswold v. Connecticut is still considered the primary ruling on the matter.
ketzu 6y ago
The universal declaration of human rights 12 [1] contains the very important word "arbitrary" as a qualifier of privacy violations. > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. One reason for this has broad applicability: Even inalienable human rights can be in conflict with each other. So solutions must weight them against each other, but will ultimately violate one or more of the clashing rights. The UDHR also recognizes the that even the article 3 "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" is limited as in so far people may be arrested (and therefore deprived of their freedom) by giving the explicit article 9 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Again, with the arbitrary qualifier. I believe, recognizing that even these funamental rights clash with each other is important. Often I feel that online discussion have each side pick the one in favor of their position and ignoring that other rights are in conflict with that position. But as you said, it is also important to recognize that there are bullshit excuses. [1] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  If you do it to everyone, is it still arbitrary?
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    Yes, it can be (depending on what you do). Arbitrary doesn't just mean treating individuals differently (discrimination) without a proper legal justification. It also applies to any government or business that overextends their legal mandate, by subjecting people (even if equally) to limitations that have no legal basis. I'm well aware that this rather quickly conflicts with some almost religious belief that anything can be limited through contracts, EULAs and TOSes (as long as its done voluntarily). When people have alternatives, without such limitations, one can argue that people still have a freedom to do things differently. When a product or service becomes some kind of necessity, or not using it somehow becomes a personal limitation of its own, then such contractual limitation essentially have just created a new "law" outside of the only official process that is supposed to govern the creation of laws. Businesses who create rules that essentially function like "private law", and governments who create laws without proper legal mandate/justification, are guilty of arbitrary behavior. Not because they treat individual people differently, but because their treatment all people is itself an arbitrary choice. As in, it lacks legal justification and goes beyond the legal authority that such a government or business has.

dheera 6y ago

> All persons have the right to receive respect for their private and family life, home, and secrecy of the mails and telecommunications. I really wish the US had this. Here, even simple acts like registering to vote or getting a driver license, bank account, credit card means your personal residence gets leaked to spammers, scammers, data brokers, and eventually, stalkers. There really should be laws saying that personal addresses cannot be given to third parties without explicit, optional, opt-in consent.

ghaff 6y ago
The information in voter registration isn't "leaked." It's public as a matter of record. (The details probably vary by state.) So are real estate purchases. (Although the latter can be gotten around in various ways.) There are tradeoffs between transparency and privacy.
- dheera 6y ago
  That's a problem. If I knew it was going to be given out, I would probably have not registered to vote, and I wasn't told about that by the people who helped me register. I don't think I agreed to any ToS that said that my address would be available to the public. As much as I think voter turnout is important, making personal addresses accessible to the public crosses the line for me.
KirillPanov 6y ago
I'm thinking of buying a condemned, uninhabitable house in a tax foreclosure auction simply so I can list it as my residential address. Most places that demand a utility bill will accept a property tax bill, so it doesn't even have to have working water/power (the cheapest doomshacks have both shut off). You'd be surprised how cheap some of these places are. But it does have to show up as "residential" in the USPS databases.
- dheera 6y ago
  My best solution right now is a UPS box, which gives you a proper street address. Most places that ask for utility bills will accept a phone bill or insurance bill or some such which you can have arranged to be sent to that address. I'd be interested to know if there are similar services that are cheaper and ideally less well-known than UPS but equally reliable. Delivery to my real address with the ability to trust them with my real address would also be cool to have. BTW -- if you have cash to burn, I'd think that renting a cheap studio somewhere that you don't actually live in (and as a bonus, can use as a storage unit, or sublease to someone if the lease allows) would be cheaper and more peace-of-mind than dealing with property taxes, crime, pests, and other issues around an uninhabitable house in your name.

101008 6y ago

So taking a screenshot of a Instagram convesation and sharing on Twitter or Facebook or whenever is ilegal and against the constitution?

jeffrallen 6y ago
Yes, and in fact avoiding abuses like this are part of the digital education offered in school. People are also pretty careful about asking for permission before publishing a person's photo. Swiss discretion is not only a marketing tactic, it is also a good habit many people keep.
- dghughes 6y ago
  >...avoiding abuses like this are part of the digital education offered in school. I would hope that schools teach "don't publish anything you don't want shared" that would be smarter. If I post an add in a newspaper, many copies are sold, and then someone copies my add that should be expected. The Internet is one big newspaper it's a public forum and privacy shouldn't be expected or assumed.
- 101008 6y ago
  So, for example, let's say I am a married guy hitting another woman. If this woman screenshots these chats and want to publish them on Instagram or even share them with my wife, that would be ilegal and they could be in trouble?
  - berkes 6y ago
    As far as I'm aware, none of the platforms you mention allow this, even. Regardless of laws, their T&C clearly forbid sharing private data of others.

nemoniac 6y ago

The European Union has the GDPR which offers protection of privacy and personal data. Mail and telecoms are covered by other legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...