5 ms·

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 s

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.

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.