7 ms·

The right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 [0]. It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate th

by pcrh 11mo ago

The right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 [0]. It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. [0] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-human-rights-article-8-0 https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...

pfortuny 11mo ago
Think of the children. You want the police to solve crimes, right? If you are against this it is because you have something to hide. Also it is more than possible that those politicians do not agree with that Convention.
- pigpag 11mo ago
  [dead]
- crest 11mo ago
  Only boring people have nothing to hide.
- ntoskrnl_exe 11mo ago
  Wow, it’s always crazy how the folks who have nothing to hide get mad when the lock on the stall door in a public bathroom doesn’t work…
- sitzkrieg 11mo ago
  "having something to hide" or defending a human right. who cares. easy to tell where this one gets their feed
  - 0_gravitas 11mo ago
    I assumed the post was sarcastic, but Poe's Law I suppose, sadly..
karhuton 11mo ago
”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.” Are we reading the same thing? This linked statement clearly authorizes invasion of privacy by public authorities, in the name of any of the very vaguely listed reasons – as long as there’s some law to allow it.
- pcrh 11mo ago
  Mass surveillance has already been ruled to be in contravention of the Human Rights act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Violation_of_the_convention_by_mass_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv... >A 2014 report to the UN General Assembly by the United Nations' top official for counter-terrorism and human rights condemned mass electronic surveillance as a clear violation of core privacy rights guaranteed by multiple treaties and conventions and makes a distinction between "targeted surveillance" – which "depend[s] upon the existence of prior suspicion of the targeted individual or organization" – and "mass surveillance", by which "states with high levels of Internet penetration can [] gain access to the telephone and e-mail content of an effectively unlimited number of users and maintain an overview of Internet activity associated with particular websites". *Only targeted interception* of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime, including terrorism, is justified, according to a decision by the European Court of Justice.[23]
  - wmf 11mo ago
    The loophole there is "targeted" so they'll declare that Son of Chat Control is to be targeted.
  - spwa4 11mo ago
    A decision by the European Court of Justice or any other court does not apply to any legislative branch like the EU commission (not parliament), when making new laws. New laws simply override old laws (to be interpreted as specializations, more or less exceptions, to the old laws)
encom 11mo ago
First time?
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 11mo ago
Gotta find those with illegal opinions somehow.
TacticalCoder 11mo ago
[dead]
rambojohnson 11mo ago
it escapes you because all these treaty clauses read like safeguards, but in practice they’re just friction. Once a government decides it needs mass surveillance for ‘security,’ the law bends. The real question isn’t what the ECHR allows... it’s why people still think legal frameworks can meaningfully restrain a state that has already decided not to be restrained. it escapes me hwo so many can be so naive.
- disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
  > it’s why people still think legal frameworks can meaningfully restrain a state that has already decided not to be restrained. The EU isn't really a state, though. The members are states, but not the EU.
  - brigandish 11mo ago
    As the saying goes, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” EU law and its constitution have primacy.
    - disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
      Sort of. It's not quite like anything else. The EU has mostly trade and standardization powers, and lots of the other stuff is an outgrowth of that. But mostly, EU law just sets a baseline, and almost all execution of it is devolved to the member states. Edit: the EU does not have a constitution but a constitution shaped update of the Treaties. Now, lots of politicians are happy to blame the EU for unpopular stuff, but the council is the national politicians and they basically run the EU.
      - rambojohnson 11mo ago
        I'm not going down this semantic rabbit hole, which is way beside the point. :)
        disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
WhyNotHugo 11mo ago
> It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. There is no penalty for doing so. If something is outlawed but there is no negative consequence for doing it, then it’s not really outlawed in practical terms.
aleph_minus_one 11mo ago
> It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. You make use of the silent assumption that politicians are not criminals. :-(
MarsIronPI 11mo ago
And it's not just EU politicians who ignore their constitution. US politicians have been ignoring the US Constitution for oh (checks history books) at least 85 years.
piekvorst 11mo ago
You can’t defend any rights by reference to legal authority. As long as it’s a legal domain, any exceptions are permitted, even on the “human” rights level. Rights can only be defended on moral grounds, like rights to freedom or self-defense.
psychoslave 11mo ago
Because they don't get banned from being able to either take a sit in a political position for life after they went to jail for a few years for high treason agaisnt the people.
constantcrying 11mo ago
The idea of constitutional guarantees, which should be defended absolutely and in their strongest sense only exists inside the US. Especially the EU, with limited democratic oversight, does not have to be too concerned about things like this.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
some_random 11mo ago
You have no right to privacy from authorities. In fact, you'll find that Europeans have very few actual rights.

by pcrh 11mo ago

pfortuny 11mo ago

Think of the children. You want the police to solve crimes, right? If you are against this it is because you have something to hide. Also it is more than possible that those politicians do not agree with that Convention.

pigpag 11mo ago
[dead]
crest 11mo ago
Only boring people have nothing to hide.
ntoskrnl_exe 11mo ago
Wow, it’s always crazy how the folks who have nothing to hide get mad when the lock on the stall door in a public bathroom doesn’t work…
sitzkrieg 11mo ago
"having something to hide" or defending a human right. who cares. easy to tell where this one gets their feed
- 0_gravitas 11mo ago
  I assumed the post was sarcastic, but Poe's Law I suppose, sadly..

karhuton 11mo ago

”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.” Are we reading the same thing? This linked statement clearly authorizes invasion of privacy by public authorities, in the name of any of the very vaguely listed reasons – as long as there’s some law to allow it.

pcrh 11mo ago
Mass surveillance has already been ruled to be in contravention of the Human Rights act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Violation_of_the_convention_by_mass_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv... >A 2014 report to the UN General Assembly by the United Nations' top official for counter-terrorism and human rights condemned mass electronic surveillance as a clear violation of core privacy rights guaranteed by multiple treaties and conventions and makes a distinction between "targeted surveillance" – which "depend[s] upon the existence of prior suspicion of the targeted individual or organization" – and "mass surveillance", by which "states with high levels of Internet penetration can [] gain access to the telephone and e-mail content of an effectively unlimited number of users and maintain an overview of Internet activity associated with particular websites". *Only targeted interception* of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime, including terrorism, is justified, according to a decision by the European Court of Justice.[23]
- wmf 11mo ago
  The loophole there is "targeted" so they'll declare that Son of Chat Control is to be targeted.
- spwa4 11mo ago
  A decision by the European Court of Justice or any other court does not apply to any legislative branch like the EU commission (not parliament), when making new laws. New laws simply override old laws (to be interpreted as specializations, more or less exceptions, to the old laws)

encom 11mo ago

First time?

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 11mo ago

Gotta find those with illegal opinions somehow.

TacticalCoder 11mo ago

[dead]

rambojohnson 11mo ago

it escapes you because all these treaty clauses read like safeguards, but in practice they’re just friction. Once a government decides it needs mass surveillance for ‘security,’ the law bends. The real question isn’t what the ECHR allows... it’s why people still think legal frameworks can meaningfully restrain a state that has already decided not to be restrained. it escapes me hwo so many can be so naive.

disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
> it’s why people still think legal frameworks can meaningfully restrain a state that has already decided not to be restrained. The EU isn't really a state, though. The members are states, but not the EU.
- brigandish 11mo ago
  As the saying goes, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” EU law and its constitution have primacy.
  - disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
    Sort of. It's not quite like anything else. The EU has mostly trade and standardization powers, and lots of the other stuff is an outgrowth of that. But mostly, EU law just sets a baseline, and almost all execution of it is devolved to the member states. Edit: the EU does not have a constitution but a constitution shaped update of the Treaties. Now, lots of politicians are happy to blame the EU for unpopular stuff, but the council is the national politicians and they basically run the EU.
    - rambojohnson 11mo ago
      I'm not going down this semantic rabbit hole, which is way beside the point. :)
      - disgruntledphd2 11mo ago

WhyNotHugo 11mo ago

> It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. There is no penalty for doing so. If something is outlawed but there is no negative consequence for doing it, then it’s not really outlawed in practical terms.

aleph_minus_one 11mo ago

> It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. You make use of the silent assumption that politicians are not criminals. :-(

MarsIronPI 11mo ago

And it's not just EU politicians who ignore their constitution. US politicians have been ignoring the US Constitution for oh (checks history books) at least 85 years.

piekvorst 11mo ago

You can’t defend any rights by reference to legal authority. As long as it’s a legal domain, any exceptions are permitted, even on the “human” rights level. Rights can only be defended on moral grounds, like rights to freedom or self-defense.

psychoslave 11mo ago

Because they don't get banned from being able to either take a sit in a political position for life after they went to jail for a few years for high treason agaisnt the people.

constantcrying 11mo ago

The idea of constitutional guarantees, which should be defended absolutely and in their strongest sense only exists inside the US. Especially the EU, with limited democratic oversight, does not have to be too concerned about things like this.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

some_random 11mo ago

You have no right to privacy from authorities. In fact, you'll find that Europeans have very few actual rights.