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.
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.