Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 434 posts

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#301

Post by adrianba »

aksss wrote: post #146
perihelions wrote: post #57

Just to clarify a point for discussion: this is already the law in the USA, and always has been [0]. European privacy law formerly prohibited private entities from reading personal communications, and handing them over warrantlessly to governments (as I understand it (?)); but this was never a thing in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

From that source: In 1986, the United States Congress updated the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by enacting the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which included an updated "Wiretap Act" and also extended Fourth Amendment-like protections to electronic communications in Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, known as the Stored Communications Act . In Carpenter v. United States…

That's what ECPA says, but the Fourth Amendment does apply to e-mails as well as ECPA. Today, pretty much no significant commercial e-mail provider is going to give up e-mail contents without a warrant, even when over 180 days old.

In 2010, the Sixth Circuit held ECPA to be unconstitutional as it relates to email and compelled disclosure without a warrant (at least for large volumes of private email) [0]. This hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court, although the Warshak opinion has been cited approvingly, mostly because providers don't disclose content without a warrant so nobody has had a case to take up.

Carpenter shows 4A can protect metadata under some circumstances too (for more than 7 days of CSLI), even if law enforcement obtain a court order, which requires less evidence than a search warrant.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#302

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

briefcomment wrote: post #295
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

No rights are objectively fundamental. It's subjective. If people in power don't agree to act as though certain rights are fundamental, they cease to be enforced, even if lip service is paid.

Excellent point. So I’ll ignore “fundamental right” next time I read it.

I note that the United States uses “inalienable rights”, meaning ones which can’t be given or taken away.

The only things that can’t be given or taken from me without a lobotomy are my education and internal thoughts and beliefs (that includes things like self-worth and dignity).

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#303

Post by johnswas »

autoexec wrote: post #280
aksss wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true.. not much to be done with the major providers are all in bed with the Feds. I mean, the telcos literally allow the Feds to port mirror all their traffic. End to end encryption on your own encrypted storage perhaps.

I'm not sure if "allow" is the right word here. Really the NSA can set up another Room 641A at any company they want regardless of that company's wishes and with a national security letter the company can be prevented from even telling anyone (like their customers or the media) about it. I was furious when Obama granted telecom companies immunity from prosecution for their role in the warrantless spying, but really i…

Presidents are just puppets

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#304

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

azernik wrote: post #294
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

We assign those rights as a society and, more relevantly here, as a political system. The people who draft our constitutions and (like for all political norms) those who create our political discourse have more influence in defining them than the general population, but these norms have to be agreed to by a fairly large swathe of society to be effective.

You are speaking of rights. I’m speaking of “fundamental rights”. How are they different?

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#305

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

mkoubaa wrote: post #299
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

It assumes the geopolitical domination of a group who asserts the right as fundamental. In other words a world order.

A world order or just a political system like a country?

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#306

Post by johnswas »

pessimizer wrote: post #235
geofft wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people you're replying to aren't glossing over it, the posted article (and the comments predicting the end of the European tech industry) is glossing over it. "European Parliament approves mass surveillance" really means "European Parliament suspends portion of privacy law that prevents third parties from voluntarily monitoring information entrusted to them" - as they're able to do in the US. The European Parliam…

This is a bizarre distinction to make when the third party doctrine has resulted in mass surveillance in the US. > The European Parliament isn't (in this action, at least) compelling anyone to surveil anything. Why shoot down something that you're adding to the article? Who said the European Parliament was compelling anyone to do anything?

Third party doctrine did not result in mass surveillance.

9/11 did, which of course US did themselves. Everything is going according to their plan.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#308

Post by dane-pgp »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287
II2II wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The pro…

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

I think that "fundamental" doesn't mean "naturally occurring" or "universal", but rather "foundational", in the sense that more nuanced rights are based upon their basic principles.

So for example we have the principle of "freedom of speech", which might be accepted by courts and society as including a right to publish literary works that some deem offensive, but that could be considered a subsidiary or supplementary right which doesn't have the same level of protection.

More relevantly, a society might accept the principle of a "right to privacy", but might not think that grants a "right to privacy from warranted surveillance" or from "warrant-less automated mass surveillance".

Of course there will always be a tension, as rights activists will instinctively claim that denying some specific right is undermining a fundamental right, since they are sure that everyone agrees that the new right is an inherent consequence of that fundamental right, but the government will always claim that its policy doesn't impinge upon any fundamental right and that the specific new right that the activists believe in doesn't need to exist at all.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#309

Post by WalterBright »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287
II2II wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The pro…

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

> how is a right fundamental?

They are inalienable and bestowed by their Creator. I.e. they are part of the innate nature of human beings.

Governments can either protect those rights or abrogate them - it cannot invent them.

And yes, they stretch back to when humans became human. Though it took a while for people to formally recognize them.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#310

Post by WalterBright »

briefcomment wrote: post #295
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

No rights are objectively fundamental. It's subjective. If people in power don't agree to act as though certain rights are fundamental, they cease to be enforced, even if lip service is paid.

If governments bestow rights, then the citizens have no business revolting against an oppressive government.
Post reply on HN