4 ms·

From the European Convention on Human Rights [1]: > Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life edit > Everyone has the right to respect for his

From the European Convention on Human Rights [1]: > Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life edit > Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. [1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_and_Fundamental_Freedoms https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_P...

perihelions 1y ago
From the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic, Article 31: > "Postal and telecommunications secrecy are inviolable." https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Constitution_of_the_German_Democratic_Republic_(1974)#Article_31 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Constitution_of_t...
- epolanski 1y ago
  Same for Italian constitution. But you know how it goes with law: all you need is a supreme-court equivalent to judge what are the boundaries and exact definition of those articles..
- hopelite 1y ago
  Germany does not have what could be considered a constitution, or a Verfassung in German. The article 31 is not even protected by the “Eternity Clause” that, ironically can simply be removed by the legislature. But it seems relatively irrelevant anyways, as all western governments seem to just ignore all fundamental laws if it suits them, let alone regular laws, regardless of constitution or not. And that does not even go into the fact that the illegitimate EU just de facto supersedes all legitimate national laws.
  - throw-the-towel 1y ago
    You've not reading GP carefully, they're quoting the East German constitution.
    - hopelite 1y ago
      I didn't catch that, but my point not only still stands as it applies to both Germanies, and really only makes my point even more salient. Fact of the matter is that Germany simply does not have anything that can be considered a Constitution/Verfassung no matter how much Germans are bamboozled to believe they have something like a Constitution; a core set of laws that cannot simply be removed by a captured body of government. If it is a Constitution/Verfassung, what is the obtuse nonsense that "the human dignity is inviolable" in the German basic law, when the German government has done nothing but violate the dignity, not even to mention the rights of the German people? They don't even abide by their own basic law. What else can you call it when like happened in Germany a few months ago, a government that had already failed, held elections which it lost in the form of clear rebuttal of its policies, and then before ending and then further engaging in undemocratic practices, quickly voted to majority change this fake "Constitution". Imagine if the US House controlled by Republicans could, after the midterm elections where Democrats take a major number of seats, simply just voted to change the constitution so that Democrats could not take control in a single vote. Would you consider that as having a Constitution?... a fundamental, difficult to move foundation of law that even the legislature had to abide by as it is only very difficult to change? That is the fundamental difference between a constitution and just a facade of "fundamental law" that acts as if it is a Constitution in Germany. Again, it also seems to be ignored that this fake Constitution in not even only Germany, but effectively all European countries is being totally subverted and undermined by the illegitimate suppression of EU fake law crated by an entity that was simply imposed on Europe without any objective legitimacy democratic legitimacy. It sometimes disappoints me just how ignorant Europeans are of not only their own government situation, but even across Europe and America. These are not difficult concepts and not a matter of "I'm better than you", it's simply a matter of objective analysis and people don't like their ugly baby being called ugly.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    Germany does not have what could be considered a constitution, or a Verfassung in German that is not correct. Grundgesetz = Verfassung: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung changes require a 2/3rds majority, just like changes to the US constitution. the unamendable parts in both are very few.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - hopelite 1y ago
      That is clearly not correct, hence why it is not called a Verfassung, but rather a Grundgesetz. You can rationalize it all you want, but not, it is not the same as in the USA, where not only do you need a constitutional amendment proposed and agreed on by not only the House but also 2/3 of the Senate. Then it still does not pass until 3/4ths of all the states also ratify the amendment all across the USA. Did you catch how that might be different than when the last German government quickly removed the debt brake from this fake constitution with a single vote and after new elections had already been had and lost by the current government.
      - em-bee 1y ago
        you are right about the additional layer of needing ratification by US states, but other than that, i see no difference. in the end it's just a name for a specific concept, and the concepts of Grundgesetz and Verfassung are not different enough to argue over which name is correct. i disagree that the difference is the reason why germany named it Grundgesetz. they could have decided to name it Verfassung instead, and nothing would have changed. we would still have the same rules to change it. there is nothing in the name that forces a different approach. more interesting is the actual contents and the principles that are being covered. debt brake for example in my opinion has no business being part of a constitution or Grundgesetz. it should never have been added there in the first place. that's not what a constitution is for. putting stuff like that in there weakens the Grundgesetz and makes a mockery of it. it reeks of planned economy. that doesn't mean that the debt brake is bad, or that it should not be protected by requiring a 2/3rd vote to change it. there just should be a different place for that, in order to keep the Grundgesetz focused on issues that you really don't want to change. in other words, even if only a single 2/3rd vote is necessary to approve a change, a change to the Grundgesetz should be a rare exception.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  > > "Postal and telecommunications secrecy are inviolable." So phone taps are illegal in Germany? Police can't record what you're talking on the phone?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > phone taps are illegal in Germany? They’re quoting the East German constitution. I think there is a /s missing at the end.
  - Pesthuf 1y ago
    If the police has a warrant, they can present it to your phone provider who are then required to send the data they have about you and your phone calls. This data may include the actual recorded conversations if allowed by the warrant. This is regulated in the Telekommunikations-Überwachungsverordnung (TKÜV). Edit: nvm, I didn't see this was about the GDR.
- sterlind 1y ago
  the GDR phrasing is much stronger and less ambiguous than the ECHR one. however, given what we know of the Stazi I'm skeptical they honored it.
phkamp 1y ago
Somehow you overlooked that Article 8 has a second clause, even though it comes right after the bit you quoted ? 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
- swader999 1y ago
  They shouldn't have even bothered with the first part.
- phkahler 1y ago
  That doesn't say what kind of interference, nor does it say anyone is required to provide assistance to them.
- ErigmolCt 1y ago
  But the key words here are "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society." That's a pretty high bar, not a free pass.
  - jaapz 1y ago
    But it also leaves open the possibility for lawmakers to simply create a new law which allows snooping. What's "necessary in a democratic society" is also pretty open, and can change from one government to the next.
    - seanieb 1y ago
      Scanning everyone’s messages does not meet the bar of necessity. Especially when you look at their reasoning, child safety. Every country in EU should be ashamed of the funding they give police to investigate and prosecute known abuse and abuse materials. When they’ve properly financed policing maybe then they can make an argument that additional steps are necessary but not before.
blitz_skull 1y ago
Genuinely curious, why must privacy extend to online? Last week’s events have me pondering the real value of online anonymity in a civil society. I understand encryption and privacy aren’t 1:1, but if one goes, so goes the other. At any rate, I want to hear other opinions. While I agree with the right to privacy, I’m wondering if privacy in ALL contexts is a good and healthy thing.
- ecshafer 1y ago
  Last weeks events were a huge tragedy. But lets assume mass spying and no encryption, how would that have stopped it? A schizophrenic with a knife, or a political extremist with a gun, isn't something that necessitates coordination.
  - Tostino 1y ago
    Which school shooting are you talking about?
    - ecshafer 1y ago
      I was referring to Charlie Kirks assassination and the ukrainian girl being murdered on the train. But there was also a beheading in dallas and a school shooting in colorado this week. I dont think any of these wouldve been stopped by spying.
- f1shy 1y ago
  Genuine question: why not? To start an answer I would say is dangerous territory to say „online must not follow the rules of offline“. My expectantion would be as general principle „onlinity“ is irrelevant. As far as sensible of course.
- michaelmrose 1y ago
  Having a ready made list of everyone's thoughts on every topic and the ability to sift through every tedious mountain of data with software to classify everyone according to every sort of ideology would certainly be handy if your nation ever became a fascist dystopia. You could end up having to not only not critique your personal Hitler but praise him to get the right score to work in civil service or not only not only not say pro lgbtq talking points but spout pro bigot positions to qualify as a teacher helping to create first the illusion then the reality of the universiality of these positions. Imagine how well the French resistance would have gone if all the trouble makers or likelyoffenders had been shot preemptively!
ta1243 1y ago
Everyone's post is private. Until there's a court order which allows it to be opened. Everyone's phone call is private, until there's a court order In principal I have no problem with a court order overriding privacy, it's been that way for centuries
- godshatter 1y ago
  If they get a court order then they can start trying to break the encryption.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  There’s no regulation on content of the post, so you can encrypt your message, print it and send it by post. Equivalent of the court order in digital world is the permission to obtain whatever version of the content is available. Mandating that all mail should be written in such a way that someone from the government could understand it, is clear overreach.
  - adrian17 1y ago
    I agree with the argument on the logical level, but in practice I don't think it should be used be used, at least not as the first argument. For the general public, talking about encrypting a physical letter makes you look even more paranoid / malicious than when talking about online encryption.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      It’s HN, the public here is slightly more educated in digital affairs, right?
- scotty79 1y ago
  In practice there are physical limits on how much phonecalls or snail mails can be improperly publicized. Online even the stuff that very rich companies struggle very hard to keep private regularly gets publicized in bulk. You might think in terms of "medium is the message" so you can't directly transfer something that works in principle for one medium to another.
ivan_gammel 1y ago
You are quoting outdated document. There’s the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was proclaimed in 2000 and came into force with Lissabon Treaty in 2009 [1]. In that document it’s article 7. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng

perihelions 1y ago

From the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic, Article 31: > "Postal and telecommunications secrecy are inviolable." https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Constitution_of_the_German_Democratic_Republic_(1974)#Article_31 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Constitution_of_t...

epolanski 1y ago
Same for Italian constitution. But you know how it goes with law: all you need is a supreme-court equivalent to judge what are the boundaries and exact definition of those articles..
hopelite 1y ago
Germany does not have what could be considered a constitution, or a Verfassung in German. The article 31 is not even protected by the “Eternity Clause” that, ironically can simply be removed by the legislature. But it seems relatively irrelevant anyways, as all western governments seem to just ignore all fundamental laws if it suits them, let alone regular laws, regardless of constitution or not. And that does not even go into the fact that the illegitimate EU just de facto supersedes all legitimate national laws.
- throw-the-towel 1y ago
  You've not reading GP carefully, they're quoting the East German constitution.
  - hopelite 1y ago
    I didn't catch that, but my point not only still stands as it applies to both Germanies, and really only makes my point even more salient. Fact of the matter is that Germany simply does not have anything that can be considered a Constitution/Verfassung no matter how much Germans are bamboozled to believe they have something like a Constitution; a core set of laws that cannot simply be removed by a captured body of government. If it is a Constitution/Verfassung, what is the obtuse nonsense that "the human dignity is inviolable" in the German basic law, when the German government has done nothing but violate the dignity, not even to mention the rights of the German people? They don't even abide by their own basic law. What else can you call it when like happened in Germany a few months ago, a government that had already failed, held elections which it lost in the form of clear rebuttal of its policies, and then before ending and then further engaging in undemocratic practices, quickly voted to majority change this fake "Constitution". Imagine if the US House controlled by Republicans could, after the midterm elections where Democrats take a major number of seats, simply just voted to change the constitution so that Democrats could not take control in a single vote. Would you consider that as having a Constitution?... a fundamental, difficult to move foundation of law that even the legislature had to abide by as it is only very difficult to change? That is the fundamental difference between a constitution and just a facade of "fundamental law" that acts as if it is a Constitution in Germany. Again, it also seems to be ignored that this fake Constitution in not even only Germany, but effectively all European countries is being totally subverted and undermined by the illegitimate suppression of EU fake law crated by an entity that was simply imposed on Europe without any objective legitimacy democratic legitimacy. It sometimes disappoints me just how ignorant Europeans are of not only their own government situation, but even across Europe and America. These are not difficult concepts and not a matter of "I'm better than you", it's simply a matter of objective analysis and people don't like their ugly baby being called ugly.
- em-bee 1y ago
  Germany does not have what could be considered a constitution, or a Verfassung in German that is not correct. Grundgesetz = Verfassung: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung changes require a 2/3rds majority, just like changes to the US constitution. the unamendable parts in both are very few.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - hopelite 1y ago
    That is clearly not correct, hence why it is not called a Verfassung, but rather a Grundgesetz. You can rationalize it all you want, but not, it is not the same as in the USA, where not only do you need a constitutional amendment proposed and agreed on by not only the House but also 2/3 of the Senate. Then it still does not pass until 3/4ths of all the states also ratify the amendment all across the USA. Did you catch how that might be different than when the last German government quickly removed the debt brake from this fake constitution with a single vote and after new elections had already been had and lost by the current government.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      you are right about the additional layer of needing ratification by US states, but other than that, i see no difference. in the end it's just a name for a specific concept, and the concepts of Grundgesetz and Verfassung are not different enough to argue over which name is correct. i disagree that the difference is the reason why germany named it Grundgesetz. they could have decided to name it Verfassung instead, and nothing would have changed. we would still have the same rules to change it. there is nothing in the name that forces a different approach. more interesting is the actual contents and the principles that are being covered. debt brake for example in my opinion has no business being part of a constitution or Grundgesetz. it should never have been added there in the first place. that's not what a constitution is for. putting stuff like that in there weakens the Grundgesetz and makes a mockery of it. it reeks of planned economy. that doesn't mean that the debt brake is bad, or that it should not be protected by requiring a 2/3rd vote to change it. there just should be a different place for that, in order to keep the Grundgesetz focused on issues that you really don't want to change. in other words, even if only a single 2/3rd vote is necessary to approve a change, a change to the Grundgesetz should be a rare exception.
ExoticPearTree 1y ago
> > "Postal and telecommunications secrecy are inviolable." So phone taps are illegal in Germany? Police can't record what you're talking on the phone?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > phone taps are illegal in Germany? They’re quoting the East German constitution. I think there is a /s missing at the end.
- Pesthuf 1y ago
  If the police has a warrant, they can present it to your phone provider who are then required to send the data they have about you and your phone calls. This data may include the actual recorded conversations if allowed by the warrant. This is regulated in the Telekommunikations-Überwachungsverordnung (TKÜV). Edit: nvm, I didn't see this was about the GDR.
sterlind 1y ago
the GDR phrasing is much stronger and less ambiguous than the ECHR one. however, given what we know of the Stazi I'm skeptical they honored it.

phkamp 1y ago

Somehow you overlooked that Article 8 has a second clause, even though it comes right after the bit you quoted ? 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

swader999 1y ago
They shouldn't have even bothered with the first part.
phkahler 1y ago
That doesn't say what kind of interference, nor does it say anyone is required to provide assistance to them.
ErigmolCt 1y ago
But the key words here are "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society." That's a pretty high bar, not a free pass.
- jaapz 1y ago
  But it also leaves open the possibility for lawmakers to simply create a new law which allows snooping. What's "necessary in a democratic society" is also pretty open, and can change from one government to the next.
  - seanieb 1y ago
    Scanning everyone’s messages does not meet the bar of necessity. Especially when you look at their reasoning, child safety. Every country in EU should be ashamed of the funding they give police to investigate and prosecute known abuse and abuse materials. When they’ve properly financed policing maybe then they can make an argument that additional steps are necessary but not before.

blitz_skull 1y ago

Genuinely curious, why must privacy extend to online? Last week’s events have me pondering the real value of online anonymity in a civil society. I understand encryption and privacy aren’t 1:1, but if one goes, so goes the other. At any rate, I want to hear other opinions. While I agree with the right to privacy, I’m wondering if privacy in ALL contexts is a good and healthy thing.

ecshafer 1y ago
Last weeks events were a huge tragedy. But lets assume mass spying and no encryption, how would that have stopped it? A schizophrenic with a knife, or a political extremist with a gun, isn't something that necessitates coordination.
- Tostino 1y ago
  Which school shooting are you talking about?
  - ecshafer 1y ago
    I was referring to Charlie Kirks assassination and the ukrainian girl being murdered on the train. But there was also a beheading in dallas and a school shooting in colorado this week. I dont think any of these wouldve been stopped by spying.
f1shy 1y ago
Genuine question: why not? To start an answer I would say is dangerous territory to say „online must not follow the rules of offline“. My expectantion would be as general principle „onlinity“ is irrelevant. As far as sensible of course.
michaelmrose 1y ago
Having a ready made list of everyone's thoughts on every topic and the ability to sift through every tedious mountain of data with software to classify everyone according to every sort of ideology would certainly be handy if your nation ever became a fascist dystopia. You could end up having to not only not critique your personal Hitler but praise him to get the right score to work in civil service or not only not only not say pro lgbtq talking points but spout pro bigot positions to qualify as a teacher helping to create first the illusion then the reality of the universiality of these positions. Imagine how well the French resistance would have gone if all the trouble makers or likelyoffenders had been shot preemptively!

ta1243 1y ago

Everyone's post is private. Until there's a court order which allows it to be opened. Everyone's phone call is private, until there's a court order In principal I have no problem with a court order overriding privacy, it's been that way for centuries

godshatter 1y ago
If they get a court order then they can start trying to break the encryption.
ivan_gammel 1y ago
There’s no regulation on content of the post, so you can encrypt your message, print it and send it by post. Equivalent of the court order in digital world is the permission to obtain whatever version of the content is available. Mandating that all mail should be written in such a way that someone from the government could understand it, is clear overreach.
- adrian17 1y ago
  I agree with the argument on the logical level, but in practice I don't think it should be used be used, at least not as the first argument. For the general public, talking about encrypting a physical letter makes you look even more paranoid / malicious than when talking about online encryption.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    It’s HN, the public here is slightly more educated in digital affairs, right?
scotty79 1y ago
In practice there are physical limits on how much phonecalls or snail mails can be improperly publicized. Online even the stuff that very rich companies struggle very hard to keep private regularly gets publicized in bulk. You might think in terms of "medium is the message" so you can't directly transfer something that works in principle for one medium to another.

ivan_gammel 1y ago

You are quoting outdated document. There’s the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was proclaimed in 2000 and came into force with Lissabon Treaty in 2009 [1]. In that document it’s article 7. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng