- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
The EU Court ruled that “Backdoors may also be exploited by criminal networks and would seriously compromise the security of all users’ electronic communications. The Court takes note of the dangers of restricting encryption described by many experts in the field.” Any requirement to build in backdoors to encryption protocols for law enforcement agencies could also be taken advantage of by malicious actors.
The EU Court of Human Rights’ also builds on their acknowledgment that “mass surveillance does not appear to have contributed to the prevention of terrorist attacks, contrary to earlier assertions made by senior intelligence officials.”
Well… see y’all again in 2 yrs when they try to push it through under a new name
You mean 1 month when the interoperability deadline goes into effect
Yes, these things are never dead. They just come back under a different name / pretensions until they pass.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Politicians that push for legislation that has previously been ruled as unconstitutional should be charged for willfully trying to literally break the law.
And anyone in position of power/trust should be punished twice, once for the crime and again for doing so in a position of power.
Sounds nice in theory, but it works both ways: It would make political progress very difficult. Imagine a scenario in which e.g. trans rights are being rejected as unconstitutional in the past. The same politicians are then trying again in a different political climate year or decades later. This would be illegal according to your proposal.
Not to mention, it would be fairly trivial to circumvent this by using different politicians from the same party or an aligned interest group.
Then the constitution that would prohibit trans rights would need to be changed first. If politicians want to remove the constitutional right to privacy in order to allow spying on your own constituents, then go ahead and own the fact that you want to undermine the right to privacy. Don’t hide behind “oh, this will totally not affect law-abiding citizens”.
Some social progress such as death penalty abolition or gay marriage often pass with short majorities, and constitutional changes usually require exceptionally large majorities.
Then that’l require more fighting. I however doubt that the constitution of most countries place huge blocks on giving people more freedom.
Sounds like the constitution would need to be updated in that case. But there has been no successful constitutional challenges for trans-rights, so it wouldn’t apply in this case.