New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly • Hacker News Board

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#41

Post by ChuckMcM » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 5:47 PM UTC

To be clear, "it works" is not an argument, it is a counter factual, basically evidence that invalidates a previous claim. The argument that author makes was a general "it does not work" and in the very broad definition of works or doesn't work, mass surveillance can be shown to have uncovered unlawful activity that would have gone undetected without it. That is a very technical definition of 'working' and does not address the moral or legality issues of the surveillance itself.

My goal is to help the author make a stronger argument for their cause. And it is stronger to claim mass surveillance has not been effective at countering or uncovering terrorist plots but it has been effective at violating peoples civil liberties and subjecting people to a violation of their right to privacy. Then you have to tie that right to privacy to locally enacted laws or constitutional claims. In the US we've been asserting that mass surveillance is a violation of the 4th amendment which says US citizens have the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable search. And then we've gone on to argue that mass surveillance is an unreasonable search. With judicial backing like the recent ruling about putting a camera on a telephone pole across the street from a house to keep it under surveillance.

So you have to build the argument from the initial claim to the last one so that each step of the way the listener can understand and agree (or debate) the evidence you present for supporting that claim. That was the form the article takes, laying out its claims one by one to support its call to action to reject the changes proposed in Dutch law.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#42

Post by schoen » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

Financial transactions are not necessarily "very high privacy" in the U.S. Financial transactions over $10,000 are required to be reported to the government, as well as transactions that a banker believes are part of a cumulative transaction over $10,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

In addition, banks are not allowed to open accounts without verifying the customer's identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

I don't think it's clear how well credit card transaction data is protected against subpoenas, and there is a rumor that one or more of the many undisclosed §215 bulk collection programs relate to financial transactions. There are statutory protections for financial transaction records, but the Supreme Court has held that a bank account holder has no constitutional expectation of privacy in the bank's records. U.S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#43

Post by vezzy-fnord » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

marriage is a religious institution, seems pretty clear.

That's the issue, there is no single definition. Firstly, the practical issues of every religion having different views on marriage that may be incompatible with municipal law. Further, in many countries the religious institution of marriage is purely symbolic and not legally binding. There is a wholly separate category of civil marriage, which is often intertwined with things like contract law and tax law, meaning that the denial of it to certain groups can be construed as discriminatory. Once the state is involved, many bets are off. Furthermore, some jurisdictions have so called "common law marriage" clauses that allow for circumstances indirect to religious or civil marriage, such as a domestic partnership, to be considered legally binding marriages.

I generally support having marriage be privatized and simply be a contract set by N parties that is arbitrated by courts, but your presentation omits crucial details. Moreover, whether the ideal marriage privatization is even feasible under the current disparate laws remains an open question.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#44

Post by joshuapants » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

> All we really have to do is fire judges (and those that appoint them) who do not uphold the constitution

The biggest problem with doing something like this is coming to an agreement on exactly what the constitution allows and prohibits (and somehow also get everyone to agree that the constitution should be followed, because there are people all over the political spectrum who don't think that).

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#45

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

> It's simply people versus their various over-reaching governments.

If pretty much every liberal democracy of any significant size is doing it, maybe we should stop and think about why. Blaming "over-reaching governments" is too simplistic in my opinion. I have a hard time believing that the legislative process is so broken in every liberal democracy that such surveillance is happening contrary to the public will.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#46

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

I think looking at your gay marriage example exemplifies why your thinking is wrong.

Your interpretation reads the phrase "establishment of" completely out of the text. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of that text is that Congress isn't allowed to establish a national religion. And using your logic, we should fire all the judges who have interpreted the establishment clause to prohibit more than that.

Similarly, there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the 4th amendment that looks at the things protected in the enumerated list (person, house, papers, and effects) and concludes that it only prevents what would be a trespass to property if not done by the government. Judges who read in a "right to privacy" from that, according to your view, should be fired.

In fact, the whole "right to privacy" hiding in the "penumbras" of the Constitution can be discarded, and the judges who read that in should be fired too.

Alternatively, I think your problem is not with judges who don't uphold the Constitution, but rather your interpretation of it.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#47

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

> maybe we should stop and think about why

They tell us why!

- to keep us safe

- to protect our way of life

- to protect the children

- insert your own favorite fear mongering here

And all that without a shred of proof.

'if everybody is doing it' wasn't a very good reason to jump on the bandwagon in high-school, I see absolutely no reason to come to the conclusion that 'if every liberal democracy of any significant size is doing it' is any stronger as a reason to give out free passes.

This is all about fear and using that fear to push through legislation that appears to benefit nobody (except maybe some technology vendors) and that has the potential to negatively affect the lives of 100's of millions.

Given the stakes I think it is the other side that should do the explaining without us having to 'think about why' because if we're just going to sit and make stuff up there is no end to this, ever.

Giving up all these privileges should come with a substantial change in quality of life or some other tangible benefit and from where I'm sitting I have not seen anything at all that was not better on those fronts when I was a kid.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#48

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

> marriage is a religious institution, seems pretty clear.

Marriage has been a civic institution arranging property and legal rights as long as it has been a religious institution.

The separate civic and religious functions were often intertwined in societies which did not separate Church and State, but there are clear and separate served by the now-separate civic and religious institutions sharing the same name.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#49

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

A statement that "public will" had anything to do with any of this would be an extraordinary claim. The public can't decide not to have traffic jams. How would they decide what information gets collected by whom? I doubt they could decide what information gets collected by devices they own.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#50

Post by Tomte » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:52 PM UTC

Unfortunately, passing an amendment is nearly impossible in the United States, leading to a much more hateful and uncompromising struggle to get everything you care about before the Supreme Court.

Scalia has this nice little statistic showing that just about 2% of the American population can kill any constitutional amendment.

Not any 2%, of course, just the 2% in the least populous states.