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

Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 178 posts

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#121

Post by Tarsul »

petre wrote: post #102
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from. I understand... it's simple... someone does something bad, nothing happens to them... bad thing again... nothing happens... people protest... nothing happens... bad thing again.. nothing happens... If this was some other timeline, and people brought guillotines out every couple of years and "dealt with" the "bad" politicians in "the f…

This only happens in France but without guillotines: strikes + yellow gillet protests. The Germans are too well behaved to do anything or the political process is much too civilised to employ any form of civil disobedience.

I think it also has something to do with that our (German) media is not as radicalised. And Germans don't like facebook, so there's probably less options/danger also to radicalise through social media. And usually the poor are not as poor as in other countries. But we will see what happens this winter.

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#122

Post by goodrubyist »

pgorczak wrote: post #115
Semaphor wrote: post #3

Our data retention laws get overturned all the time. Usually already by our constitutional courts. Sadly our politicians don’t care much and don’t get punished, so they just try it again and again and again and usually it’s in effect for a while before the courts give judgement. I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from. edit: The last sentence is sarcasm

The process makes sense from a separation of powers perspective. When there’s an especially fine line between what legislative wants and (constitutional) judicative allows, there has to be some rejections. This is probably one of the cases where lawmakers feel some spite about constitutional courts exerting too much influence over their work. It would be easier if they’d just talk about it before going through the wh…

That's not how it works at least in the US, but I don't know about Germany. SCOTUS claims that the judicial system is not for reviewing all the acts passed for constitutionality, but (as per Article III) only addressing specific harms brought up by individuals (the requirement for standing). This is from a 1992 precedent:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Talking in advance about what law is constitutional would be perverse under such system (I love the standing doctrine, btw and so does the Chief Justice).

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#123

Post by immibis »

ghiculescu wrote: post #112
int_19h wrote: post #110

There's a curious comment on that article from a person in support of that retention law: "Google can do that [blanket data collection], my Chinese mobile phone manufacturer too, why shouldn't the government be able to do it?" Something to ponder when we talk about data collection by private parties: like it or not, it does provide justification for governments doing the same.

You can opt out of using Google or buying Chinese phones more easily than you can opt out of being German. Governments have more unchecked power and should be held to a higher standard accordingly.

In the EU, you can very easily opt out of living in Germany.

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#124

Post by int_19h »

eivarv wrote: post #111
int_19h wrote: post #110

There's a curious comment on that article from a person in support of that retention law: "Google can do that [blanket data collection], my Chinese mobile phone manufacturer too, why shouldn't the government be able to do it?" Something to ponder when we talk about data collection by private parties: like it or not, it does provide justification for governments doing the same.

No, it does not – for two reasons: - Two wrongs don't make a right: Someone behaving unethical does not excuse unethical behavior from someone else. - There is a difference in the power dynamics of the relationships: Consumer and service provider VS citizen and state. If anything, laws and right should be strengthened to explicitly ban this behavior.

You may disagree with that justification, sure. The point is that there are people who are convinced by it.

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#125

Post by drooopy »

rmbyrro wrote: post #5

Is the ECJ kind of a Supreme Court that can overturn member state laws and rulings? I had the impression member states were 100% sovereign within the EU...

I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as a 100% sovereign country anywhere in the world.

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#126

Post by moonchrome »

immibis wrote: post #123
ghiculescu wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can opt out of using Google or buying Chinese phones more easily than you can opt out of being German. Governments have more unchecked power and should be held to a higher standard accordingly.

In the EU, you can very easily opt out of living in Germany.

That's like saying you can solve a pest infestation problem in your house by blowing it up.

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#127

Post by AdrianB1 »

rmbyrro wrote: post #5

Is the ECJ kind of a Supreme Court that can overturn member state laws and rulings? I had the impression member states were 100% sovereign within the EU...

The member states are not 100% sovereign within the EU, there are some mechanisms to control it. For example, Romania (EU member country) has a provision that international treaties signed by the country override local legislation, so that EU directives - while not directly in effect - are above local legislation.

Practically, if a national law is found to be not compliant with the EU legislation, the country has some time to adjust it to make it compliant or to repel it. In court cases, the Constitutional Court can directly strike the provision in the law or the entire law, as appropriate.

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#128

Post by tarakat »

int_19h wrote: post #109
tarakat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've seen where this leads to in the US, where the federal government financially extorts states to fall in line on issues that are supposed to be up to the states, such as what happened with speed limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta...

The difference is that EU member states have the right to leave if they don't think the arrangement benefits them.

And we must ensure that choice remains economically viable, and not just for the largest member states. Because a union maintained by compulsion, even economic compulsion, is not a union, but an empire.

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#129

Post by eivarv »

int_19h wrote: post #124
eivarv wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it does not – for two reasons: - Two wrongs don't make a right: Someone behaving unethical does not excuse unethical behavior from someone else. - There is a difference in the power dynamics of the relationships: Consumer and service provider VS citizen and state. If anything, laws and right should be strengthened to explicitly ban this behavior.

You may disagree with that justification, sure. The point is that there are people who are convinced by it.

Whether people are convinced or not – your claim was that it provided "justification".

My point is that it does no such thing – it doesn't hold up as a valid argument (which really is the bare minimum for something to even be considered as potentially true).

Re: Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says

#130

Post by pgorczak »

goodrubyist wrote: post #122
pgorczak wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process makes sense from a separation of powers perspective. When there’s an especially fine line between what legislative wants and (constitutional) judicative allows, there has to be some rejections. This is probably one of the cases where lawmakers feel some spite about constitutional courts exerting too much influence over their work. It would be easier if they’d just talk about it before going through the wh…

That's not how it works at least in the US, but I don't know about Germany. SCOTUS claims that the judicial system is not for reviewing all the acts passed for constitutionality, but (as per Article III) only addressing specific harms brought up by individuals (the requirement for standing). This is from a 1992 precedent: 1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally…

AFAICT it really is different in Germany. The constitutional court can also be called by other courts, by the government or by parliament to check already passed laws.
Post reply on HN