Well, some would say that’s already suggested in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12. “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence […]” That’s from 1948 already… But of course when implemented into law, it gets softened up and exceptions get added for when it’s “[…] 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.” ( European Convention on Human Rights).
But I think you’re right. We need awareness for the importance of privacy. And exact standards on how severe exactly these other things need to be to warrant breaking privacy. And I think we need a distinction between targeted spying on people, and mass surveillance. And we might want to lobby for a law to outlaw mass surveillance and be done with it.
(For Germans: https://www.freiheit.org/de/deutschland/gibt-es-ein-recht-auf-verschluesselung )
But of course when implemented into law, it gets softened up and exceptions get added for when it’s […]
Notably, it’s not like laws can weaken human rights without cause. The laws are balancing one human right against others. For the state to ensure fairness and safety to its citizens, it has to - at some point inevitably - violate other human rights. (Locking up criminals because they are a danger to other citizens.)
There’s really no way to prevent attempts to control or interpret rights differently or weaken or balance them differently. That’s politics.
The sad thing is how repeatedly, such policies and changes get pushed repeatedly, despite repeated concerns being raised and the proposals being rejected. But there’s nothing “stronger than human rights” that you can do to prevent them.
Any attempts like “you can only propose such a law every 2 years” could be circumvented one way or another. But maybe something like that could be worthwhile. The bigger problem, though, may be how press represents them, and how lobbying orgs can lobby and push agendas without much transparency or elected representation.
Sure, I agree with this. In theory absolute privacy would be nice. But then there’s reality and the exceptions are there for a reason. But they’re also the cause for the issue here. No one could call for surveillance if it was absolute. The exceptions are the gateway. Politicians say we need to tackle crime and balance that, so we need mass surveillance to keep people under control. And that’s the point where things get complicated… Of course granting unlimited rights to commit crimes isn’t an option either, that impedes with my rights.
Yes, actually there is a legal way to do this through the European citizens initiative. If you can organise a campaign across EU countries and obtain enough support, the commission must consider your proposal.
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/_en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Citizens'_Initiative#Procedure
Unfortunatelty, its difficult to be heard because people does not really know about this posibility and usually understands it like a petition, which is not. Even very organised groups struggles with it, but theoretically is possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
They have been trying hard to get chat control even though it violates this.
Not at the moment, no. The EU’s common laws don’t have anything like the First Amendment guaranteeing a right to speech, which means that there can’t be a court case like DJB v. USA serving as a permanent obstruction. Try seating more Pirates first.
- Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. […]”
It’s not an absolute right, but cryptography and maths are well within. We have cryptography readily available here in Europe and I don’t think it’s an issue at all. And mind even in the 90s it was mostly fine to exchange the maths for cryptography here in Europe. We had PGP in the Linux repositories. That was US export law contradicting the Constitution. And hence the USA needed that court case and many European countries didn’t.
Through violence.
So long as authoritarians do not fear exploiting your privacy and decryptions, they will not cease to pry the masses.
Step 1: exterminate the usa military
Step 2: occupy europe
Step 3: give them human rights
I mean, my view is just precluding them from being in a position to pull this crap in the first place. what are they gonna do, order wireguard or tor or omemo or i2p or whatever? cool, order away, that’s not how this works.
the more you tighten your grip, the more chats will slip through your fingers.
