7 ms·
Finally. As a next step, we need mechanisms to prevent the constant rehashing of these attempts to break security. Otherwise, it will get through during a crisi
by mglz 3y ago
Finally. As a next step, we need mechanisms to prevent the constant rehashing of these attempts to break security. Otherwise, it will get through during a crisis or via fatigue.
- prox 3y agoSo it needs be enshrined in a constitution I wager.
- logicchains 3y agoIt's already enshrined in the constitution of at least one European country, the right to privacy.
- bonzini 3y agoIt is in Italy's ("Freedom and secrecy of correspondence and any other communication cannot be violated"), but I didn't think this was particularly unique? (Note that this article of the constitution doesn't include E2E encryption because there's a carve out for the judiciary to limit this freedom).
- fullspectrumdev 3y agoWhat’s deeply funny is how Italy is also where a lot of police spyware industry got its start in Europe (HackingTeam and fellow travellers).
- phtrivier 3y agoWell, the trick is, a surefire way to make voters angry in large part of the continents (or, well, large part of France anyway) it so put "Constitution" and "Europe" in the same sentence - so there is not much of a place to enshrine that at the EU level. Besides, every member state's constitution probably already has a variant of "privacy is a fundamental right except in cases defined by law". I will argue that we _definitely do_ want cases where privacy is not 100% respected (sadly, "investigating crime" is not always a red herring, newspeak, lobbying propaganda, etc... People really do that for a living, and in the common interest.) In the end, it will always be a policymaker's job to draw the lines. What I would love to enshrine in a constitution is that "People shall choose policymakers wisely.". But I'm not sure of how to enforce that :/
- dannyw 3y agoI think the 4th amendment did a good job and is quite specific. The courts rewrote it judicially. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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
- waterheater 3y agoThe Fourth Amendment protects the physical, yet other amendments also address privacy in different ways. The First Amendment protects the mind and arguably one's spirit, the Third Amendment is a specific type of physical protection, the Fifth Amendment also protects the mind, the Ninth Amendment protects the existence of privacy, and the Tenth Amendment lets states implement greater privacy protections as they see fit. Given privacy is fundamentally related to the expression of free will, it's not surprising so much touches it.
- smolder 3y ago> The Fourth Amendment protects the physical, That's a narrow reading of it. "Papers and effects" ought to extend to our data as well, something the authors could not have called out more explicitly at the time of its writing. Call it inconvenient or impractical, whatever, but it's ridiculous to conclude their intent was that government can spy on presumed innocents as long as they don't make a physical mess. I think third party doctrine is also a pile of crap... and that data brokers shouldn't have a square inch of legal ground to stand on. GDPR sets a good example in that regard.
- waterheater 3y agoI completely agree, and computing has flipped the table on our understanding of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, our technological development and privacy concerns are proportional, which says something quite profound. Are you familiar with Kyllo v. United States and Carpenter v. United States? If not, you'll probably find them intriguing. Third-party doctrine is indeed a pile of crap. Still, the fact remains that zero-cost (okay, effectively zero-cost) digital information breaks virtually all historical ownership models which legal systems protect. GDPR is okay, but compliance with it is so burdensome to small businesses that corporate-driven cloud infrastructure is the only way to survive.
- eigenket 3y agoIt essentially is. The right to privacy is part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is enshrined into law as part of the Treaty of Lisbon.
- gpderetta 3y agoYes, the Treaty of Lisbon plus the Charter act as the de-facto EU constitution.
- varispeed 3y agoIt should be illegal to even propose this and it should be equalled to hate crime. People who think this is okay, to the point that they want to enact this in law should be cast out of the society.
- JW_00000 3y agoIt seems dangerous to make proposing laws in a parliament illegal, don't you think? Anything should go in a parliament. I'm also not sure hate speech could be illegal when a member of parliament speaks in parliament, typically parliamentary debate is more widely protected.
- chopin 3y agoMy favorite solution: Those who vote for legislation found to be anti constitutional by the respective courts lose their passive voting rights and must leave Parliament immediately.
- varispeed 3y agoAre you saying that it should be perfectly acceptable for legislators to propose a law e.g. to kill all men over 60 in gas chambers and that it should be treated seriously and let go all the way through legislative process?
- JW_00000 3y agoEven more: that is currently the case in liberal democracies AFAIK. Any legislator can propose any law. It's then up to the legislative process to decide whether it should be accepted or not. (Possibly, a constitutional court could roll back laws that violate the constitution.)
- AdrianB1 3y agoNo rights enshrined in a constitution is guaranteed or respected, anywhere in the world. First, in come countries legislation breaching constitutional rights appear all the time and the burden is on the people to fight that legislation that is presumed valid. Second, people believe that some rights are no longer aligned with the modern times (see USA second amendment) and are willing to remove it. Third, constitutional rights that are not completely removed are brutally "regulated", with the same effect, and most people agree with that or actively support it. In summary, there are no rights that are guaranteed even if they are in a constitution.
- mhitza 3y agoPer the article > At the same time, we are still far from the end of the legislative process. This means that we must stay alert to how the other two law-making institutions – the Council of EU Member States and the European Commission – respond To be able to fight these ludicrous attempts at privacy, we must put a spotlight on those behind these proposals (lobbyists). Coincidence or not, it wasn't transparent, but at least some journalists investigated https://privatecitizen.press/episode/160/ https://privatecitizen.press/episode/160/
- Angostura 3y agoThe Parliament is very much the junior member compared with the Council and Commission
- toyg 3y agoIt still has ultimate veto powers.
- Angostura 3y agoI've been unable to find an instance of the European Parliament vetoing legislation
- toyg 3y agoPlenty. Some recent examples: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-parliament-scraps-pesticides-bill-latest-setback-green-legislation-2023-11-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-parliament-scr... https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13274/20 https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13274/20 https://www.thejournal.ie/emissions-trade-system-fit-for-55-5785550-Jun2022/ https://www.thejournal.ie/emissions-trade-system-fit-for-55-... (Somewhat unsurprisingly, being currently dominated by right-wing parties, it happens often on "green" legislation...) It doesn't happen every day simply because 1) MEPs typically don't want to be seen as "Mr. No", and 2) plenary votes are the end of a long legislative process, involving several steps; the Commission will typically not bring legislation to the floor if it understands, in previous committees, that it will likely be voted down. The process is roughly this: EU Council (i.e. national governments) agree that "we should really do something about X"; the Commission drafts legislation to that effect, and brings it to Parliamentary committees; MEPs provide feedback and instructions on how to change things; Commission decides if the changes are acceptable, and if not they go back to Council asking "is this still ok if we do it in XY way?"; and back and forth they go, until the Commission decides to either withdraw it or put it to a plenary vote (in which case it's typically in a shape acceptable to Parliament, because nobody likes losing).
- ratg13 3y agoThe mechanisms are in place .. literally nobody was paying attention. They spent millions on campaigns advertising this stuff and asking for feedback only to get <100 views on youtube videos about the subject. They need to start working together with higher education institutions or something rather than just hoping that people will take an active interest, instead of everyone going about their lives and only finding out when the laws are being ratified.
- bradley13 3y agoAbsolutely this. They just keep trying, one angle or another. They'll be back for another try in a year or three, with new arguments, and having purchased a few more politicians. In the worst case, they'll do something like the USA: institute secret programs that do whatever the heck they want, with no oversight. Part of the problem is that there are no negative consequences. Again, look at the US: Snowden reveals massive, illegal surveillance. Consequences to politicians and government officials: zero.
- g-b-r 3y agoForbid politicians to lie to and deceive the public, that's it. * Suddenly democracy works. * (except about personal matters)
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Forbid politicians to lie to and deceive the public, that's it. Forbidding something is never “it”. People do prohibited things all the time. “Prohibit” is not “magically prevent”.
- g-b-r 3y agoOf course forbid with very strong penalties and no statute of limitations...
- dragonwriter 3y agoBy whom are laws enforced, and by whom are those people appointed and to whom do they answer? Or, to take another angle, why don't the prohibitions in FISA effectively stop the government from abusing foreign intelligence apparatus for domestic spying?
- g-b-r 3y agoBecause the US are messed up on so many levels. Of course the judicial, legislative and executive branches should be independent and they're not that much right now. In any case, even in such a system the proposal might have more positive than negative effects, and maybe lead to gradual improvements to everything else.
- HideousKojima 3y agoOr it might make things even worse. After all,the FISA court system itself was created in response to abuses by the CIA and FBI (and others) as a way to check their power. Instead, it became a (secret and opaque) rubber stamp that approves over 99% of all warrant applications.
- freedomben 3y agoYep, the standard playbook on this stuff is to table it for 6 months, at which point you reintroduce. Repeat ad infinitum until it passes. If at any point there's a crisis that can be used, reintroduce immediately.
- cryptonector 3y agoThat's the European way. Keep voting until the desired result is obtained.