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

Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

privacynotprism.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#31

Post by pjc50 »

rayiner wrote: post #18

I can't believe anyone still thinks international tribunals are a good idea. As if not bad enough for unelected judges to subvert democracy in their own county, but now you can have unelected judges in other countries subvert democracy in yours!

Sticking the "unelected" qualifier on "judge" as if there is no distinction between law and politics betrays a lot of prejudice. Judges in the EU aren't directly elected anywhere, as far as I know.

Human Rights law in the EU serves much the same role as constitutional law does in the US: an underlying set of values that the behaviour of the government must be consistent with. Article 8 ECHR serves much the same role as the US 4th Amendment in limiting searches.

Besides, if there's genuine consensus the rules can be changed and the judiciary have to go along with that.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#32

Post by SEMW »

rayiner wrote: post #27
SEMW wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unelected judges to subvert democracy... If your definition of 'democracy' is a system of tyranny of the majority, where an elected government can do whatever it likes, create law in its own image without constitutional limit or fetter (for fear of 'subverting democracy'), then I don't particularly want to live in a democracy. And, thankfully, I don't. Liberal democracy (in the classical sense) has the principle of…

"Democracy" is tyranny of the majority. In our constitutional republics, we have courts as a check on democracy, and that's necessary. Sometimes, those courts strike down programs generally supported by the electorate. Sometimes that's necessary too, but it's always a subversion of democracy. However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's why internati…

> However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people.

That's a valid POV, but it can hardly be stated as fact. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes its existence to a broad consensus that, actually, certain fundamental principles of human rights are universal, and a South African has as much of a right to not be tortured by his government as an Englishman does. Of course, not everyone agrees, but denying any kind of universal quality to human rights is a fairly... niche form of cultural relativism.

> That's why international tribunals can have no legitimacy.

Aaand that's just a non-sequitur. The ECtHR has legal legitimacy to rule on UK issues because the UK voluntarily signed the ECHR. Its rulings do not have direct effect in the UK, but have a certain amount of indirect effect nevertheless because Parliament passed a law in 1998 giving them that. (FWIW, since then, the ECHR - which was mostly drafted by an Englishman - can also be enforced domestically in UK courts, and the ECtHR have only rarely overruled UK courts on ECHR interpretation issues).

So the situation here is the executive (GCHQ) possibly acting in violation of the will of Parliament (as expressed in the HRA1998). Parliament has delegated the task of deciding when the executive has violated its law to various judicial bodies, domestic and international. That's not subverting democracy. It's enforcing it.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#33

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #29
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Democracy" is tyranny of the majority. In our constitutional republics, we have courts as a check on democracy, and that's necessary. Sometimes, those courts strike down programs generally supported by the electorate. Sometimes that's necessary too, but it's always a subversion of democracy. However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's why internati…

But why should a New York judge decide what happens in Alaska or Idaho?

[deleted]

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#34

Post by tptacek »

DanBC wrote: post #29
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Democracy" is tyranny of the majority. In our constitutional republics, we have courts as a check on democracy, and that's necessary. Sometimes, those courts strike down programs generally supported by the electorate. Sometimes that's necessary too, but it's always a subversion of democracy. However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's why internati…

But why should a New York judge decide what happens in Alaska or Idaho?

Well, first of all, they generally can't.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#35

Post by oleganza »

SEMW wrote: post #24
rayiner wrote: post #18

I can't believe anyone still thinks international tribunals are a good idea. As if not bad enough for unelected judges to subvert democracy in their own county, but now you can have unelected judges in other countries subvert democracy in yours!

> unelected judges to subvert democracy... If your definition of 'democracy' is a system of tyranny of the majority, where an elected government can do whatever it likes, create law in its own image without constitutional limit or fetter (for fear of 'subverting democracy'), then I don't particularly want to live in a democracy. And, thankfully, I don't. Liberal democracy (in the classical sense) has the principle of…

Who defines and enforces "rule of law" and "human rights"? These people are the rulers then. When some "majority" or "president" decides that "X is a basic human right", then suddenly everyone who produces and sells X must sell it for government-imposed prices. Or has to go to jail.

It would probably be cool if we figured out all basic human rights once and for all and had the written laws enforce themselves without human supervision. But the reality is that people are doing harm to people, not papers. And people decide when this harm is justified and when it's not.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#36

Post by tptacek »

pjc50 wrote: post #31
rayiner wrote: post #18

I can't believe anyone still thinks international tribunals are a good idea. As if not bad enough for unelected judges to subvert democracy in their own county, but now you can have unelected judges in other countries subvert democracy in yours!

Sticking the "unelected" qualifier on "judge" as if there is no distinction between law and politics betrays a lot of prejudice. Judges in the EU aren't directly elected anywhere, as far as I know. Human Rights law in the EU serves much the same role as constitutional law does in the US: an underlying set of values that the behaviour of the government must be consistent with. Article 8 ECHR serves much the same role…

Judges everywhere tend to be "unelected". That's not innuendo. It's a fact that constitutional and legal scholars tend to be acutely aware of when determining the scope and balance of powers in a judiciary. Constitutional scholars constantly raise the same point about the US Supreme Court: its justices are unelected, and we are not a nation governed by philosopher kings.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#37

Post by [deleted] »

SEMW wrote: post #32
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Democracy" is tyranny of the majority. In our constitutional republics, we have courts as a check on democracy, and that's necessary. Sometimes, those courts strike down programs generally supported by the electorate. Sometimes that's necessary too, but it's always a subversion of democracy. However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's why internati…

> However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's a valid POV, but it can hardly be stated as fact. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes its existence to a broad consensus that, actually, certain fundamental principles of human rights are universal, and a South African has as much of a right to not be tortured by his government as…

[deleted]

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#38

Post by tptacek »

rmc wrote: post #23
rayiner wrote: post #18

I can't believe anyone still thinks international tribunals are a good idea. As if not bad enough for unelected judges to subvert democracy in their own county, but now you can have unelected judges in other countries subvert democracy in yours!

What's wrong with that? You have unelected judges deciding things in any country with a form of constitualial law. Not everything should be directly elected. A system where everything is decided by democracy can be bad too.

Stipulate that our basis for comparison is the US just to keep things simple.

First, a lot of angst and effort goes into circumscribing the powers of the federal judiciary precisely because they're unelected. They are for instance limited to hearing actual controversies involving parties with standing.

Second, our constitutional system "works" because it follows from an actual constitution, which was ratified and over 200 years reshaped by elected representatives of the people. In no place in the US system is there an escape hatch for the Supreme Court to do whatever it thinks is right while contravening the constitution. A strong enough democratic majority can in fact force the Supreme Court to do anything, by amending the constitution.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#39

Post by SEMW »

oleganza wrote: post #35
SEMW wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unelected judges to subvert democracy... If your definition of 'democracy' is a system of tyranny of the majority, where an elected government can do whatever it likes, create law in its own image without constitutional limit or fetter (for fear of 'subverting democracy'), then I don't particularly want to live in a democracy. And, thankfully, I don't. Liberal democracy (in the classical sense) has the principle of…

Who defines and enforces "rule of law" and "human rights"? These people are the rulers then. When some "majority" or "president" decides that "X is a basic human right", then suddenly everyone who produces and sells X must sell it for government-imposed prices. Or has to go to jail. It would probably be cool if we figured out all basic human rights once and for all and had the written laws enforce themselves without…

> "X is a basic human right", then suddenly everyone who produces and sells X must sell it for government-imposed prices. Or has to go to jail.

This is nonsense. The ECHR is enforceable against states only (it's a treaty, after all - its signatories are states, not individuals). Non-state entities can't be sued, let alone prosecuted, for violating it - they're not bound by it.

It contains a list of rights and restrictions that states must comply in their three capacities (when taking executive actions, making laws, and ruling on cases). The rights are things like 'right not to be tortured' and 'right to free expression', not 'right to buy milk for 50p'.

(Ironically, if a state did decide to price-fix some basic substance, they're then in danger of running afoul of a different set of international laws: EU free trade regulations).

Post reply on HN