7 ms·

Quoting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europ

• petermcneeley 6mo ago
  You know that those pieces of paper mean nothing.
  • rvz 6mo ago
    Thank you for telling them. Governments do not care about anyone.
    • rolandog 6mo ago
      In theory, governments are made up of citizens. In practice, once the citizens are corrupted into corporate shills, they become politicians. They have traded their humanity for business class seats and dining at restaurants that cater to those whose entire personality is talking about their investment portfolio.
      • microtonal 6mo ago
        Oh, please, stop this tired ‘victim of corrupt bureaucrats‘ framing. People have real choice in EP elections. There are parties that will always stand up for citizens’ rights. If they had enough seats, they could have voted this item off the agenda. Yet, people continue to choose the same conservatives and radical right over and over again, because they are enraged about immigrants and identity politics. Blame the voters.
        • rolandog 6mo ago
          Yes, there's lots of blame to pass around; but the system does reward corporate psychopaths which leaves US citizens having to choose — as South Park aptly put it — between a douche and a turd sandwich.
        • kuerbel 6mo ago
          There is a famous German comedian that invented a figure known as "The Kangaroo". It once said: "Whether left-wing or right-wing terrorism – I see no difference there." "Yes, yes," calls the kangaroo, "the ones set foreigners on fire, the others cars. And cars are worse, because it could have been mine. I don't own any foreigners."
        • modo_mario 6mo ago
          Why continue with the increased migration that the majority of the population has generally opposed then? One could have avoided those discussion points. Also what you group as the radical right doesn't tend to be supportive of this idea. They full well know they are at times at the receiving end of web control legislation and drives atm. Same for 'radical left' groups. It's the conservatives that at times make some fuzz about migration to draw votes from the former whilst keeping said migration going since it favours some of the companies they (and a load of other established parties) draw support from.
  • Macha 6mo ago
    In theory these limit the power of the EU, while anything the EU parliament passes can just be undone as easily by a future EU parliament. If you don't believe the EU charter provides any protection, why would you believe an EU law would be any different?
  • deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  • port11 6mo ago
    The Charter has been used by the courts to shoot down incoming legislation. So, in a way, those pieces of paper mean everything, as without them legislation would pass without the judiciary branch being a check on the Bloc’s powers. Your comment is merely cynical.
• narmiouh 6mo ago
  It clearly states here in 2 “consent of the person concerned OR some other legitimate basis laid down the law”, any random law will trump personal consent
  • layer8 6mo ago
    It doesn’t remove the “right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.” The law cannot be random, it must ensure “fair processing” and be limited to “specific purposes”, and the European Court of Justice as well as the ECHR will decide what constitutes a “legitimate basis” in that context. Furthermore, “Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her”, which ensures transparency of what is being collected. Last but not least, a number of EU countries enshrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence in their constitution.
    • spwa4 6mo ago
      Secrecy of correspondence only applies to sealed physical letters, so it has zero applicability to this law and provides zero protection against scanning of private messages. Also it isn't respected in most types of criminal trials. If a sealed physical letter is opened and proves fraud, for example ...
      • Muromec 6mo ago
        Secrecy of correspondence still has exceptions. That's what is always lost in these discussions -- every right of every person is not absolute. Just because you have a right to personal property, doesn't mean you don't have to pay taxes or store nuclear material in your basement. That's the hard part. But end to end encryption with forward secrecy at no cost to user makes your right to private communication absolute. It's a new thing and the balancers can't balance it against other rights of other people, so this happens.
        • cwillu 6mo ago
          The ends still have the decryption keys, so the result is the same as with a physical letter: you have to acquire the physical object holding the key material.
• blks 6mo ago
  I feel we need something much more strongly worded to protect our mail, paper or electronic, messages and other communications from being read, not just “respect”.
  • layer8 6mo ago
    This exists in a number of EU member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
    • thewebguyd 6mo ago
      The problem is, in all of those member states, they all have carve outs for "national security." Germany, for exmaple, has secrecy of correspondence that extends to electronic communications, but allows for "restrictions to protect the free democratic basic order" and outlines when intelligence services can bypass the right to privacy. Italy, France, and Polan also have similar carve outs. Having it as a right isn't enough. National security and "public safety" carve outs need to be eliminated. So long as those exist, we have no right to privacy.
      • layer8 6mo ago
        Rights are never absolute, they always have to be weighed against each other. The weighing can and should be debated, and needs strong protections when put into practice, but demanding an absolute is not reasonable.
        • dmitrygr 6mo ago
          I disagree. A right to privacy not only can be demanded, it should be demanded.
        • soraminazuki 6mo ago
          That's how human rights abuses are justified though. Every single time. This whole thread is talking about exactly that.
• einpoklum 6mo ago
  Let's parse this a little. Article 7 codifies "respect for [one's] private life" and "respect for [one's] private communications". Well, "respect" is a vague notion. This does not clearly imply that the government is not allowed to read your communications, or otherwise spy on you, if it believes it has good reason. It will do so "respectfully", or supposedly minimize the intrusion etc. As for article 8: Here it is "protection of personal data" and "fair processing". It does not say "protection from government access"; and "processing" is when the government or some other party already has your data. In fact, as others point out, even this wording has an explicit legitimization of violation of privacy and 'protection' whenever there is a law which defines something as "legitimate basis" for invading your privacy. You would have liked to see wording like: * "Privacy in one's home, personal life, communications and digital interactions is a fundamental right." * "The EU, its members, its bodies, its officers and whoever acts on its behalf shall not invade individuals' privacy." and probably something about a non-absolute right to anonymity. Codified exceptions should be limited and not open-ended.
  • Muromec 6mo ago
    > This does not clearly imply that the government is not allowed to read your communications, or otherwise spy on you, if it believes it has good reason. It will do so "respectfully", or supposedly minimize the intrusion etc. Which is... okay? Government gonna government, that's what we pay it to do.
  • vaginaphobic 6mo ago
    [dead]
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]