Germany is not supporting ChatControl – blocking minority secured

Unless there is a law that says that the fundamental right to privacy is protected then we're bound to repeat this ordeal every couple of years.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

I don't mean this in an antagonistic way, but has anyone clearly articulated a right to privacy in a clear succinct way? Unlike other human rights, the right to privacy has always been a bit fuzzy with a ton of exceptions and caveats

I just find it hard to imagine the right to privacy encoded in to law in a way that would block this. For instance there is a right to privacy in the US, but it's in a completely idiotic way. The 14th Amendment doesn't talk about privacy in any way, and it's some legal contortions and mental gymnastics that are upholding any right to privacy there.

Sounds like the European Court of Human Rights would annul it, but you can't be sure.

It's also in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But that has a big loop whole.

Article 8: Right to privacy

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. 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.

Are all UN nations bound to this declaration or at least those joining after 1948?

It's simple game theory. If one player (government) has access to private information of all players (citizens), then it's not possible to keep the government from winning, i.e. becoming tyrannical. Losing privacy equals losing liberty.

No, human rights and children's rights declarations are ratified individually.

This is correct, but also the problem. Various governments and organizations don't want to respect privacy, because they see it as a means of control and profit.

There are laws about that already. However they have exceptions (and most people support exceptions. No one expects for example the privacy of ISIS terrorists be respected when they are investigated for terrorism and there are probable cause).

I think you missed my point entirely. I'm not trying to argue there shouldn't be any privacy or anything like that

That's not my questions at all. My question is, is there some good clear framework for what should and shouldn't be private. B/c otherwise it's kind of some meaningless platitude, like "everyone should be nice to each other"

In Germany there is article 10 of the Grundgesetz. While it does allow exceptions (like through a warrant), I wouldn't be surprised that if this law was passed that our constitutional court would deny it based on article 10 (any maybe article 1, that one's important)

It shouldn't be a constant uphill battle just to keep basic rights intact

What would pass "clear and succinct" in your opinion? I don't see how it is less clearly defined than any other human right.

Let's take international law[1]. Right to privacy is defined as protection from arbitrary interference with privacy.

Is this definition problematic? Privacy itself has a short definition too: the ability of one to remove themselves or information about themselves from the public[2].

I don't see what is unclear or verbose here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#International [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

> I don't see how it is less clearly defined than any other human right

Human rights are famously almost impossible to clearly define because they're an entirely abstract category relying very much on cultural consensus for their practical definition

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. > Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

> Is this definition problematic?

Yes, very much so. By qualifying that the interference must not be unlawful it essentially makes any interference by law (like what was proposed here in the first place) fine

> privacy, family, home or correspondence

This is very restrictive, for instance there's nothing in it about online storage or your laptop / phone since they're neither your home, family or correspondence

> unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation

This manages to be so unclear that if applied strictly it'd ban any criticism of a politician or anyone else as long as you can construe it as "attacking their reputation"

> Everybody has a right to privacy (except where inconvenient).

They could have just left out Article 8. Its a “no interference by a public authority unless it want’s to.” “Well-being of the country”, “protection of health or morals” are terms that make this statute irrelevant and dependent on the current mood of the EU.

Privacy needs to be an absolute right. Any invasion of privacy of any individual is a violation of their rights and needs to be treated as such with actual repercussions following misconduct.

> Human rights are famously almost impossible to clearly define

Actually, not really. Just apply the "desert island" thought experiment to any given "human right." If you're not afforded that "human right" should you wind up on a desert island one day, it's not really a "human right" but rather a "right" that requires state backing to exist (and subject to its whims as you pointed out).

I 100% agree with the right to privacy but the keyword there is arbitrary - if everyone's comms get intercepted that would not be in contravence of the Declaration, as it would be done systematically, i.e. not arbitrarily.

The spirit of the laws is all fine and good but combing through them it's not uncommon to find these little loopholes.

There is one, which is why we keep repeating the ordeal. If there wasn't, Chat Control would have been implemented a decade ago.

Probable cause is the exception. The police should have to suspect a particular person and then get a warrant approved by a judge and then they can breach privacy. Just like it's always been. They keep pushing for a wider and wider net, though.

The fact you think that qualifies as a "clear" definition is fascinating.

This feels like just a reflexive regurgitation of the distinction between positive and negative rights that has no relevance to the discussion at all

You need some kind of carve out, otherwise how could you ever make search warrants and court ordered discovery demands legal?

Ultimately it’s the articles depend on the court judges to weigh the rights of the state against the rights of the individuals, when there isn’t a clear and obvious answer provided by the text.

Exactly, I completely agree with you. This is what baffled me about the parent comment: "Unlike other human rights, the right to privacy has always been a bit fuzzy with a ton of exceptions and caveats".

Compare the right to privacy with other human rights, and I find it as clear and succinct as its counterparts (if not clearer and more succinct in some cases).

At the same time, given the international nature of these laws, I disagree with you on their problematic nature. They are (in my view) meant as a basis of diplomatic debate and not enforcement (which would be impracticable). They are to be complemented by organic law, because on their own they are unenforceable.

What?

Coming from an American perspective, this is quite shocking and indistinguishable from parody.

"Everyone has a right to privacy expect for all cases where government decides for any reason for any that it should not apply."

Good to know that search warrants aren't a thing in the United States and anyone within 100 miles of a port can't be arbitrarily searched either.

> arbitrary interference with privacy

So if it's non-arbitrary, but systematic and consistent then anything goes?

The linked article has a great anachronism providing protections against

> attacks upon his honor and reputation

haha

> the ability of one to remove themselves or information about themselves from the public

This is completely divorced from reality.. This is pure fantasy in the digital age...

>if everyone's comms get intercepted that would not be in contravence of the Declaration,

Politicians (and probably family) plus Military comms are not intercepted, and i would make a bet that "protected persons" like the CEO of Rheinstahl would also not intercepted (states secrets blablabla).

I must not understand this analogy, because it seems to only draw the conclusion that we are to be the objects of a totalitarian state in all cases. Taking the first fundamental right from the US constitution, the right to life, is not a given on a desert island. Any number of things, including venomous snakes and scorpions, could be your end almost immediately.

Does this mean that any given state is also justified in arbitrarily killing people on the whims of its controller?