5 ms·

The way it's written and the way ECHR court works, the government has to actually argue it's way, not just say "national secirity". ECHR court however can't re

The way it's written and the way ECHR court works, the government has to actually argue it's way, not just say "national secirity". ECHR court however can't repeal the law, only fine the governmemt for actual violation of convention rights.

pcrh 1y ago
Is there any mechanism for preventing the introduction of a law that violates the ECHR? It would seem obvious that that should be the case, no?
- Muromec 1y ago
  Not under ECHR, which has twice as much signatories as EU has members and the other half is twice less chill compared to the EU. I don't remember whether the EU top court can repeal EU laws, but general answer is no. It's politics -- if the government is full shitheads that somebody voted for and then haven't protested hard enough to boot out -- then they can ignore constitution, jail judges, behead journalists in a forest and send army to shoot at protesters of the wrong kind.
  - pcrh 1y ago
    Do EU treaties per se contain any language that might be relevant to privacy? It seems axiomatic that legal systems contain provisions that prevent their violation. However, democracy requires that laws are voted on by elected representatives or plebiscites, which can of course mean repealing prior laws. However the EU institutions are not sovereign, which might be the loophole here? Edit: I'm aware that the EU is only afforded "competences" given to it by treaties, so perhaps human rights don't fall into any of these...? However, I also wonder if legislation such as Chat Control, etc, might fall outside its competences. In the end, the question is whether there is a legal mechanism by which the introduction of laws such as those in question here can be prohibited?
    - Muromec 1y ago
      There is no loophole really, EU can repeal it's own laws the same way it passes them -- it needs to get the commission, the parliament and enough national governments on board. >Do EU treaties per se contain any language that might be relevant to privacy? Doesn't matter really. No right in any treaty is absolute. Not even the right to life itself -- the police can and does shoot people and it's legal for them to do under specific conditions. And of course the chat control law says that whatever it is supposed to be doing should be done in the most privacy respecting way possible. In theory the court (any court really) can weight whether the measures are proportionate and whether negative obligations (not invade privacy) are in a balance with positive obligations (you know -- protective children is also important) and whether the balance is appropriate of a democratic society. The problem everybody is trying to not see - there is no right to E2E encryption under any law right now. There is no right to have a communication channel that government can't possibly listen to. It's not a thing. The same way there is no right to have your house unsearchable by police and your freedom unbound by a court that can jail you. There are strict limits when any of those things happen, but they do fact happen all the time for good reasons and for bad ones too. Add: if I would attack it from a legal standpoint, I would not focus on privacy so much, but rather say that creating mass-scaning capability is a threat to the democracy itself.
      - pcrh 1y ago
        Most rights are held in balance, as you describe. However, mass surveillance cannot reasonably be held in balance with detection of crimes, as most people are not criminals
        Muromec 1y ago
        It's not that I like chat control or think that mass surveillance can lead to any good. What I'm saying, is -- just because the balance isn't where you want it to be, and the policy is bad, that alone doesn't mean the law is unconstitutional, against the EU treaties or ECHR or should be impossible to pass through the legislative. It's just bad because it's bad.
    - 1y ago

pcrh 1y ago

Is there any mechanism for preventing the introduction of a law that violates the ECHR? It would seem obvious that that should be the case, no?

Muromec 1y ago
Not under ECHR, which has twice as much signatories as EU has members and the other half is twice less chill compared to the EU. I don't remember whether the EU top court can repeal EU laws, but general answer is no. It's politics -- if the government is full shitheads that somebody voted for and then haven't protested hard enough to boot out -- then they can ignore constitution, jail judges, behead journalists in a forest and send army to shoot at protesters of the wrong kind.
- pcrh 1y ago
  Do EU treaties per se contain any language that might be relevant to privacy? It seems axiomatic that legal systems contain provisions that prevent their violation. However, democracy requires that laws are voted on by elected representatives or plebiscites, which can of course mean repealing prior laws. However the EU institutions are not sovereign, which might be the loophole here? Edit: I'm aware that the EU is only afforded "competences" given to it by treaties, so perhaps human rights don't fall into any of these...? However, I also wonder if legislation such as Chat Control, etc, might fall outside its competences. In the end, the question is whether there is a legal mechanism by which the introduction of laws such as those in question here can be prohibited?
  - Muromec 1y ago
    There is no loophole really, EU can repeal it's own laws the same way it passes them -- it needs to get the commission, the parliament and enough national governments on board. >Do EU treaties per se contain any language that might be relevant to privacy? Doesn't matter really. No right in any treaty is absolute. Not even the right to life itself -- the police can and does shoot people and it's legal for them to do under specific conditions. And of course the chat control law says that whatever it is supposed to be doing should be done in the most privacy respecting way possible. In theory the court (any court really) can weight whether the measures are proportionate and whether negative obligations (not invade privacy) are in a balance with positive obligations (you know -- protective children is also important) and whether the balance is appropriate of a democratic society. The problem everybody is trying to not see - there is no right to E2E encryption under any law right now. There is no right to have a communication channel that government can't possibly listen to. It's not a thing. The same way there is no right to have your house unsearchable by police and your freedom unbound by a court that can jail you. There are strict limits when any of those things happen, but they do fact happen all the time for good reasons and for bad ones too. Add: if I would attack it from a legal standpoint, I would not focus on privacy so much, but rather say that creating mass-scaning capability is a threat to the democracy itself.
    - pcrh 1y ago
      Most rights are held in balance, as you describe. However, mass surveillance cannot reasonably be held in balance with detection of crimes, as most people are not criminals
      - Muromec 1y ago
        It's not that I like chat control or think that mass surveillance can lead to any good. What I'm saying, is -- just because the balance isn't where you want it to be, and the policy is bad, that alone doesn't mean the law is unconstitutional, against the EU treaties or ECHR or should be impossible to pass through the legislative. It's just bad because it's bad.
  - 1y ago