4 ms·
I am a bit confused. The article seems fairly political, quoting some promotional text by the pirate party and not describing what case was brought in front of
by Aachen 3y ago
I am a bit confused. The article seems fairly political, quoting some promotional text by the pirate party and not describing what case was brought in front of a judge and what the ruling bans specifically, so I clicked through to the actual court case linked at the bottom.
It has nothing to do with the pirate party or chatcontrol or any such thing. The court case was one person against the Russian government for fining Telegram when they didn't hand over plain text chat messages, if I'm skimming the initial facts section correctly. The whole article doesn't even contain the word russia. What is the article reporting on and why does it portray it as being related to the recent chatcontrol legislation?!
Edit: found the decision
> 80. The Court concludes from the foregoing that the contested legislation providing for the retention of all Internet communications of all users, the security services’ direct access to the data stored without adequate safeguards against abuse and the requirement to decrypt encrypted communications, as applied to end-to-end encrypted communications, cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.
> 81. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 [privacy] of the Convention [of human rights]
Sounds like you can indeed extend that to any other encryption-circumventing law, like chatcontrol, but without considering the specific circumstances that were present in this Russian law, I'm not sure that it will be accurate. Note, for example, the wording in paragraph 80 "without adequate safeguards against abuse". Maybe chatcontrol had those, if that had been brought in front of the same judges
- tokai 3y agoIts a judgement that will provide precedence. A Pirate Party member of the European Parliament comments because its a core issue to the party. Why would there be anything about the Pirate Party in the ruling?
- Aachen 3y agoWhy would you include "We Pirates will now fight even harder for our digital privacy of correspondence!" (and then continuing to link their website as a source of truth on the matter) in a non-promotional piece? This is an advertisement, not a news article One which I agree with, to be clear. I'm not opposed to the pirate party's views on digital matters. This party's goals/narrative just has no place in a piece about a court case
- tokai 3y agoI'm not arguing that with you. You misunderstood what was going on here, edited your comments many times, and now you want to discuss the article linked instead of the actual news (the judgement). Calm down.
- Aachen 3y agoI edited in more info as I found it, trying to be helpful for what's currently the top comment. Sorry if that's not okay
- chefandy 3y agoThere’s a disclaimer at the bottom of the article that says they publish articles from a variety of sources, and that the viewpoints expressed aren’t necessarily their own, etc. Considering that it does seem to have an angle, the byline says it’s from their own unnamed correspondent, it’s not called an opinion piece, and there’s no link to the original, I’m guessing their slightly unpredictable correspondent’s surname is GPT.
- rmbyrro 3y agoC'mon, let's let people write pationately about issues they hold in their hearts. I can totally understand why they're so passionate about this topic in particular. We don't have much left of democracy in the world. If electronic privacy is destroyed like some EU leaders want, there will be close to nothing left.
- krastanov 3y agoI thought precedents only matter in the US "common law" framework, but most of the EU is following the "civil law" framework where precedents do not matter. Does this precedent really matter?
- tokai 3y agoPrecedence is still a thing. Just less mechanically than in the US. This might be interesting: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=pnconfs_2010 https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=101...
- cycomanic 3y agoWhile precedence is not the same thing in civil law as in common law, this is essentially a ruling by the highest European court on the interpretation of a law and its conflict with human rights. These rulings are typically on the matter of principle, so it does effectively "bind" lower courts and because of this the court is very unlikely to take on another case on the same "conflict" (at least before the law has been changed).
- sofixa 3y agoIt's funny seeing "common law" referred as a US thing when it's literally been in use in the UK for centuries before the US was a thing, and that's where the US inherited it from. And precedent has it's place in civil law countries too, mostly around clarifying existing legislation in case of ambiguity, but it isn't an automatic ironclad thing.
- razakel 3y agoAn interesting quirk of English law is that murder is a common law offence. There is no Act of Parliament proscribing it; it's just something that everybody has always accepted is a crime.
- SllX 3y agoIt’s a Council of Europe institution (note, not EU), so really there’s no common legal philosophy, just the relevant treaties and conventions. The European Court of Human Rights’ whole raison d’être is the European Convention on Human Rights, so it interprets laws through the lens of whether they conform to that, and does have its own case law, albeit a short history of it.
- vaylian 3y agoThe article is not the original. The original text can be found here: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/european-court-of-human-rights-bans-weakening-of-secure-end-to-end-encryption-the-end-of-eus-chat-control-csar-mass-surveillance-plans/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/european-court-of-human-rig...