5 ms·

So it needs be enshrined in a constitution I wager.

by prox 3y ago

logicchains 3y ago
It's already enshrined in the constitution of at least one European country, the right to privacy.
- bonzini 3y ago
  It 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 ago
    What’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 ago
Well, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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 ago
        I 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Yes, the Treaty of Lisbon plus the Charter act as the de-facto EU constitution.
varispeed 3y ago
It 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    My 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 ago
    Are 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 ago
      Even 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 ago
No 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.

So it needs be enshrined in a constitution I wager.

by prox 3y ago

So it needs be enshrined in a constitution I wager.

logicchains 3y ago

It's already enshrined in the constitution of at least one European country, the right to privacy.

bonzini 3y ago
It 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 ago
  What’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 ago

Well, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  The 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 ago
      I 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 ago

It 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 ago
Yes, the Treaty of Lisbon plus the Charter act as the de-facto EU constitution.

varispeed 3y ago

It 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 ago
It 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 ago
  My 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 ago
  Are 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 ago
    Even 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 ago

No 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.