7 ms·

Software is flexible which seems to result in our human rights being equally flexible. Imagine the police regularly raiding your apartment without announcement

Software is flexible which seems to result in our human rights being equally flexible. Imagine the police regularly raiding your apartment without announcement. The post office opening all your mail. Storage box companies searching your unit. You wouldn't be OK with that. You're innocent until proven guilty and a search requires a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and an approved warrant. Private communication is private and absolutely nobody else's business. It's a crime to open somebody's mail. In the digital domain, we're fine with all of these illegal searches, either we don't even know they happen or we do know yet let it pass, as it feels "invisible" and not intrusive. Plus, you're a standup citizen so all is good. And that's how one day you end up as a bankrupted outcast for having insulted the king.

908B64B197 4y ago
Lots of places don't have strong constitutional protections, for anything. Not that long ago, the government in Canada started freezing citizen's bank accounts on suspicions they donated small amounts to a certain peaceful organization organizing protests the government didn't like. They just decided to suspend the constitution (because that's a thing over there?). But what's interesting to see is people from Europe and Commonwealth nations voting with their feet and deciding that they too want more constitutional protections (which they are entitled to!). Here in the Bay it seems there's a constant interest from EU nationals to move to America (judging by the volume of applications we get). But I've never heard anyone interested to do the reverse. Top destination for EU nationals in Academia was... right here in the US [0]. Interesting to speculate what impact the policies imposed by these non-elected EU bureaucrats will have on this demographic. More brain drain? Is it the intended goal? [0] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-brain-trade http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra...
- leoedin 4y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but there's plenty of Americans living all over Europe. Here in London there's loads.
- desas 4y ago
  Maybe people are voting with their feet for constitutional protections. Maybe it's because the USA is significantly richer and pays more, there's likely to be a whole range of reasons. I work with several US nationals who have relocated to the EU.
- robopsychology 4y ago
  The UK doesn't even have a constitution Also, as a European living in the Bay, part of it is for the higher salaries. If I can take my Bay rate and bring it back to Europe I'm going to do that.
  - gweinberg 4y ago
    Yes it does. It doesn't have a Constitution, but that's not the same thing as not having a constitution.
    - robopsychology 4y ago
      Okay to put it another way the constitution is uncodified and weak - parliament can change constitutional laws at a whim due to no separation of powers and no-one could sit down and write it out anyway. So it's a pretty weird constitution if you can call it that, and many legal scholars argue it isn't one. https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688 https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        $51 is an expensive citation.
        somenameforme 4y ago
        https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688 https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688
    - int_19h 4y ago
      UK operates on the notion of parliamentary supremacy, which makes any constitution, formal or informal, largely meaningless, since the Parliament can always override anything in it with simple majority vote: "It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them, the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid."
- CamelCaseName 4y ago
  "peaceful" is absolutely not the word I'd use for 18-wheeler trucks blaring their horns around the clock in a city center.
  - MrPatan 4y ago
    Of course not, "peaceful" is reserved for burning buildings and cars.
    - labster 4y ago
      I remember the good old days when people could be against riots regardless of their politics without getting canceled. But those days are long gone. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-BLM. I’m not a racist or anything.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        I remember the good old days when you could be pro-riots and still agree that the behavior was illegal, because "burning the system down" was a position taken with honesty. When US "peacekeepers" invade a foreign country, that's illegal too.
        labster 4y ago
        Nah, that’s just enhanced liberation techniques.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- transcriptase 4y ago
  Careful, if any HN folk reside in Ottawa they’ll be all over you implying that honking horns is psychological torture and that everything is the fault of the RCMP and Provincial government for not shutting down protests first.
  - labster 4y ago
    Hey, post your street address online here. Me and some buddies will camp outside your house honking horns all night long for a month or two, all in completely harmless good fun as we all agree it’s simply free speech.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - unconed 4y ago
      Did they honk horns at night? I seem to recall explicit calls to not do that.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Sleep deprivation is recognized as torture everywhere.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  > certain peaceful organization organizing protests the government didn't like. When you go beyond defending behavior, to go out of your way to avoid saying what you are talking about, you discredit yourself.
- mdekkers 4y ago
  > Here in the Bay it seems there's a constant interest from EU nationals to move to America (judging by the volume of applications we get). But I've never heard anyone interested to do the reverse. Plenty of Americans do just that, a friend of mine got his USA certificate of un-citizenship last week
- int_19h 4y ago
  Canada has a clause in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms that literally allows the legislature of any province to pass laws in direct contradiction to most of the Charter - specifically, the sections on fundamental rights. They just have to explicitly point out which parts of the Charter they found inconvenient when invoking this clause. Quebec is notorious for abusing this power (mostly for its language laws), but other provinces have also found it useful on occasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
seydor 4y ago
I 'm actually shocked that people are OK with that. People in countries that have had dictatorships recently probably remember that. Snitches everywhere, the police raiding houses again and again for no reason, with no recourse and people were just accepting it.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Many struggle understanding consequences unless it's happening directly to them at that very moment. Until then, the problem ceases to exist for them.
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  As a Russian student studying in Paris, it was a terrifying realization that the mayor can, apparently, prohibit any and all mass protests by simply issuing a decree, no higher authority needed. (This was in 2018 IIRC.) This is apparently part of the anti-terrorist law or something? I dunno, and nobody seemed to care except for the participants of the protests that were happening at the time. Compared to the constant, unceasing reminders by Russian activists that the de facto prohibition on protests in Russia is a legal sham and the actual thing would require the president declaring a state of emergency (that only happened in 2022 and then not fully), the silence in an established democractic society was deafening. The tired “freeze peach” responses on HN evoke similar feelings, as do the “private businesses can deny anything to anyone”. (Never seen a less-than-loyal artist’s concert cancelled the day before because the venue received a suggestion—not a command, mind you, a suggestion—from a city official’s phone? Have I got news for you.)
  - orwin 4y ago
    It cannot. It can refuse an organized protest, and ask the prefect to deploy the police at particular location, but cannot prohibit protests. Actually, Paris' mayor is the mayor with the less executive power, as they don't have a municipal police. Paris prefect, on the other hand, is the most powerful prefect in France. But prefects in France have too much power. It would be fine if the legislative and judiciary branch acted as they should in a healthy democracy, but the legislative power is subordinate to the executive, and different presidents over tim choose to reduce the judiciary power. The fact that Macron and ex-Sarkozists claim Erdoğan is going too far with his judicial reform is a joke. A bad one.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
> Private communication is private and absolutely nobody else's business. It's a crime to open somebody's mail. I thought we were talking in the context of the EU? It's not a crime for them if the government is doing it (or asking for it). They don't have rights like that.
- Skeime 4y ago
  I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. The EU law will need to be implemented by national laws and at least in Germany, there is Art 10 GG (the 10th paragraph of the constitution) which protects one’s rights to private communication (specifically also against the government; this is the whole point of constitutions!). Granted, the paragraph also contains a provision for lawful exceptions, but in general, our highest court has ruled that such exceptions need to be reasonable in scope. I have some hope (but less than I’d like) that this will happen here, as well.
- hugginn 4y ago
  It's definitely illegal to open letters not addressed to you in Sweden. I'm not sure what makes you think we don't have rights like that. I think an issue here might be that a lot of jurisdictions have privacy laws specific to post, and the law system hasn't been able to keep up with the technological development.

908B64B197 4y ago

Lots of places don't have strong constitutional protections, for anything. Not that long ago, the government in Canada started freezing citizen's bank accounts on suspicions they donated small amounts to a certain peaceful organization organizing protests the government didn't like. They just decided to suspend the constitution (because that's a thing over there?). But what's interesting to see is people from Europe and Commonwealth nations voting with their feet and deciding that they too want more constitutional protections (which they are entitled to!). Here in the Bay it seems there's a constant interest from EU nationals to move to America (judging by the volume of applications we get). But I've never heard anyone interested to do the reverse. Top destination for EU nationals in Academia was... right here in the US [0]. Interesting to speculate what impact the policies imposed by these non-elected EU bureaucrats will have on this demographic. More brain drain? Is it the intended goal? [0] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-brain-trade http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra...

leoedin 4y ago
I hate to break it to you, but there's plenty of Americans living all over Europe. Here in London there's loads.
desas 4y ago
Maybe people are voting with their feet for constitutional protections. Maybe it's because the USA is significantly richer and pays more, there's likely to be a whole range of reasons. I work with several US nationals who have relocated to the EU.
robopsychology 4y ago
The UK doesn't even have a constitution Also, as a European living in the Bay, part of it is for the higher salaries. If I can take my Bay rate and bring it back to Europe I'm going to do that.
- gweinberg 4y ago
  Yes it does. It doesn't have a Constitution, but that's not the same thing as not having a constitution.
  - robopsychology 4y ago
    Okay to put it another way the constitution is uncodified and weak - parliament can change constitutional laws at a whim due to no separation of powers and no-one could sit down and write it out anyway. So it's a pretty weird constitution if you can call it that, and many legal scholars argue it isn't one. https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688 https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      $51 is an expensive citation.
      - somenameforme 4y ago
        https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688 https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688
  - int_19h 4y ago
    UK operates on the notion of parliamentary supremacy, which makes any constitution, formal or informal, largely meaningless, since the Parliament can always override anything in it with simple majority vote: "It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them, the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid."
CamelCaseName 4y ago
"peaceful" is absolutely not the word I'd use for 18-wheeler trucks blaring their horns around the clock in a city center.
- MrPatan 4y ago
  Of course not, "peaceful" is reserved for burning buildings and cars.
  - labster 4y ago
    I remember the good old days when people could be against riots regardless of their politics without getting canceled. But those days are long gone. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-BLM. I’m not a racist or anything.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      I remember the good old days when you could be pro-riots and still agree that the behavior was illegal, because "burning the system down" was a position taken with honesty. When US "peacekeepers" invade a foreign country, that's illegal too.
      - labster 4y ago
        Nah, that’s just enhanced liberation techniques.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
transcriptase 4y ago
Careful, if any HN folk reside in Ottawa they’ll be all over you implying that honking horns is psychological torture and that everything is the fault of the RCMP and Provincial government for not shutting down protests first.
- labster 4y ago
  Hey, post your street address online here. Me and some buddies will camp outside your house honking horns all night long for a month or two, all in completely harmless good fun as we all agree it’s simply free speech.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - unconed 4y ago
    Did they honk horns at night? I seem to recall explicit calls to not do that.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  Sleep deprivation is recognized as torture everywhere.
hgsgm 4y ago
> certain peaceful organization organizing protests the government didn't like. When you go beyond defending behavior, to go out of your way to avoid saying what you are talking about, you discredit yourself.
mdekkers 4y ago
> Here in the Bay it seems there's a constant interest from EU nationals to move to America (judging by the volume of applications we get). But I've never heard anyone interested to do the reverse. Plenty of Americans do just that, a friend of mine got his USA certificate of un-citizenship last week
int_19h 4y ago
Canada has a clause in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms that literally allows the legislature of any province to pass laws in direct contradiction to most of the Charter - specifically, the sections on fundamental rights. They just have to explicitly point out which parts of the Charter they found inconvenient when invoking this clause. Quebec is notorious for abusing this power (mostly for its language laws), but other provinces have also found it useful on occasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...

seydor 4y ago

I 'm actually shocked that people are OK with that. People in countries that have had dictatorships recently probably remember that. Snitches everywhere, the police raiding houses again and again for no reason, with no recourse and people were just accepting it.

waboremo 4y ago
Many struggle understanding consequences unless it's happening directly to them at that very moment. Until then, the problem ceases to exist for them.
mananaysiempre 4y ago
As a Russian student studying in Paris, it was a terrifying realization that the mayor can, apparently, prohibit any and all mass protests by simply issuing a decree, no higher authority needed. (This was in 2018 IIRC.) This is apparently part of the anti-terrorist law or something? I dunno, and nobody seemed to care except for the participants of the protests that were happening at the time. Compared to the constant, unceasing reminders by Russian activists that the de facto prohibition on protests in Russia is a legal sham and the actual thing would require the president declaring a state of emergency (that only happened in 2022 and then not fully), the silence in an established democractic society was deafening. The tired “freeze peach” responses on HN evoke similar feelings, as do the “private businesses can deny anything to anyone”. (Never seen a less-than-loyal artist’s concert cancelled the day before because the venue received a suggestion—not a command, mind you, a suggestion—from a city official’s phone? Have I got news for you.)
- orwin 4y ago
  It cannot. It can refuse an organized protest, and ask the prefect to deploy the police at particular location, but cannot prohibit protests. Actually, Paris' mayor is the mayor with the less executive power, as they don't have a municipal police. Paris prefect, on the other hand, is the most powerful prefect in France. But prefects in France have too much power. It would be fine if the legislative and judiciary branch acted as they should in a healthy democracy, but the legislative power is subordinate to the executive, and different presidents over tim choose to reduce the judiciary power. The fact that Macron and ex-Sarkozists claim Erdoğan is going too far with his judicial reform is a joke. A bad one.

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

> Private communication is private and absolutely nobody else's business. It's a crime to open somebody's mail. I thought we were talking in the context of the EU? It's not a crime for them if the government is doing it (or asking for it). They don't have rights like that.

Skeime 4y ago
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. The EU law will need to be implemented by national laws and at least in Germany, there is Art 10 GG (the 10th paragraph of the constitution) which protects one’s rights to private communication (specifically also against the government; this is the whole point of constitutions!). Granted, the paragraph also contains a provision for lawful exceptions, but in general, our highest court has ruled that such exceptions need to be reasonable in scope. I have some hope (but less than I’d like) that this will happen here, as well.
hugginn 4y ago
It's definitely illegal to open letters not addressed to you in Sweden. I'm not sure what makes you think we don't have rights like that. I think an issue here might be that a lot of jurisdictions have privacy laws specific to post, and the law system hasn't been able to keep up with the technological development.