161–170 of 273 posts
Is there an exception for emergency purposes?
Exceptional circumstances can warrant exceptional measures, but also require exceptional justification, for example by means of a juridical decision for the individual case (i.e., a judge issuing a warrant allowing the police to install and use a backdoor on a concrete individual).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is just scams and intervenes with elections. Google is just privacy hell that sells your data for ads. Amazon is in the business of abusing its workers. Point being, it was asked for success. Not if people like the company or not.
What an intellectually dishonest take comparing Candy Crush to US big tech. You should be embarrassed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU can't ignore it - while the ECHR is separate from the EU, the EU itself is legally bound to follow the ECHR rulings.
>the EU itself is legally bound to follow the ECHR rulings You'd think so, but it actually isn't. All of the EU's member states are, but the EU and its institutions aren't. The EU is legally bound to join the Council of Europe (and thus come under the jurisdiction of the ECHR), except the EU's Court of Justice threw a spanner in the works quite a while ago and this is on hold, pretty much indefinitely. The conflict i…
It's not, negotiations started again in 2020.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-intergovernmental-co...}
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's worth noting that UK courts can't overturn Acts of Parliament. Interesting. I didn't know this, and as an American, it seems quite odd. Decisions by the parliament are treated as immutable there? Here, if a bill passed by Congress is deemed unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Parliament is sovereign. Basically, as long as Parliament says so, it can do what it wants, although it can be slowed down by institutions like the Supreme Court or the royal family. There is no real separation powers. Which _sounds_ bad, but the UK has an extremely long history of relative stability compared to basically anywhere else on the planet, so something must be going right.
The more I learn about British history, the more I think this reputation for stability is merely due to how well all the civil wars (and parliament inviting in a new royal family) were brushed over.
I am a bit confused. The article seems fairly political, quoting some promotional text by the pirate party and not describing what case was brought in front of a judge and what the ruling bans specifically, so I clicked through to the actual court case linked at the bottom. It has nothing to do with the pirate party or chatcontrol or any such thing. The court case was one person against the Russian government for fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>While a ruling on a specific case (and law), the Court seems quite skeptical towards any "requirement that providers of such services weaken the encryption mechanism for all users". If I were the UK government, I would be quite worried that the UK Online Safety Bill will be overturned by domestic courts (or the European Court) on the basis of this ruling. It's worth noting that UK courts can't overturn Acts of Parli…
Prefacing this with the fact that I never had a good feel for UK law due, in part due to it being a common law system vs. the common law system I’m more familiar with on mainland Europe. Plus, I’ve not kept up with what, if anything, the UK maintained concerning supranational jurisdiction after Brexit. That said, what you describe is similar to that of some EU countries. Take the Netherlands for example. In the Nethe…
What does that mean in practice? That the constitution always overrides any law passed by parliament?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is just scams and intervenes with elections. Google is just privacy hell that sells your data for ads. Amazon is in the business of abusing its workers. Point being, it was asked for success. Not if people like the company or not.
What an intellectually dishonest take comparing Candy Crush to US big tech. You should be embarrassed.
I don't much like it either, but it's popularity is difficult to deny.
By any objective measure, it's a successful company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only constitution that the UK has consists of Acts of Parliament. So I don't know why it should seem odd; the US courts can't strike clauses of the US Constitution, and the UK courts can't strike Acts. Amusingly, the UK government is currently trying to pass an Act to the effect that black is equivalent to white, i.e. that Rwanda is a safe country to which asylum seekers can be sent. This is analogous to the Stat…
> that Rwanda is a safe country to which asylum seekers can be sent Putting aside whether the UK government's approach is a sensible one (which in my view it isn't) we should be aware that: "the UNHCR, with financial support from the EU, has transferred refugees from Libya to Rwanda under a scheme called the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) [..] The ETM offers vulnerable refugees, taken into detention by the Libyan…
I think the key word here is safer. It wasn’t safe by any definition of the word, but a fair deal safer than the place they came from.