←back to thread

Germany is not supporting ChatControl – blocking minority secured

(digitalcourage.social)
1121 points xyzal | 2 comments | 11 Sep 25 08:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.007s | source
Show context
Raed667 ◴[11 Sep 25 09:39 UTC] No.45209593[source]▶
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.
replies(7): >>45209662 #>>45209668 #>>45209941 #>>45210027 #>>45210175 #>>45210268 #>>45213031 #
contrarian1234 ◴[11 Sep 25 09:52 UTC] No.45209668[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>45209844 #>>45210534 #
1. Geee ◴[11 Sep 25 10:16 UTC] No.45209844[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45210133 #
2. contrarian1234 ◴[11 Sep 25 11:05 UTC] No.45210133[source]▶
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"