5 ms·
Disgraceful. All we have to do is mention "national security" and we can enshrine whichever human rights violation we fancy into legislation?
by UVB-76 12y ago
Disgraceful. All we have to do is mention "national security" and we can enshrine whichever human rights violation we fancy into legislation?
- isomorphic 12y agoSoon they won't even bother with that pretense. It's already happening in the US; people who disagree with pervasive surveillance are "extremists." And so power seeks to preserve itself.
- Ntrails 12y agoPlease don't assume that your view on what constitutes a human right represents that of the majority of the population. Which, after all, is what government represents.
- higherpurpose 12y agoI don't think most "democratic" governments in their current form are a very accurate representation of what people want. The way it works now is that people get to vote once every 4 years on some campaign promises that likely won't be implemented. And then the voted in government/parliament can basically do whatever it wants. Also, you're wrong. The human rights in Europe are not "up for debate". It's the law, and the highest Court in Europe has ruled that such data retention is illegal. You don't get to say "yeah, but I don't think those are really human rights".
- Ntrails 12y agoIf that were the case it wouldn't be possible for the government to create a new law that over-ruled the highest court in Europe, surely...
- UVB-76 12y agoI'm not assuming anything. As a European citizen my rights are enshrined in the ECHR. In April the European Court of Justice ruled the previous 2006 Data Retention Directive invalid, stating that it severely interfered with two of these rights (the right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data)