4 ms·
The problem is that you are talking about the US constitution to prove your point but the article is about the UK. There might some differences in the constitut
by louhike 12y ago
The problem is that you are talking about the US constitution to prove your point but the article is about the UK. There might some differences in the constitutions which make your arguments wrong.
- pjc50 12y agoYes, the second half of that comment was lazily repurposed from another thread. The UK constitutional equivalent is the Human Rights Act. The ECJ already ruled the data retention directive unlawful: https://edri.org/ecj-data-retention-directive-contravenes-european-law/ https://edri.org/ecj-data-retention-directive-contravenes-eu... But there are two problems. Article 8 has a massive disclaimer: "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" And ECHR is not popular in the UK due to an aggressive propaganda campaign in the tabloid press.